Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

British Film Industry

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the National Heritage Committee of Session 1994–95, on the British Film Industry (House of Commons Paper No. 57-I,-II and-III), and the Government Reply thereto (Cm. 2884).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the members of the National Heritage Select Committee, I thank you for making this period available for us to debate the National Heritage Select Committee report on the British film industry, which was published last year, and such developments as have taken place since then.
We are in a period of some rejoicing in this country because British artists have won Oscars, a whole collection of British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards last Sunday evening and awards at the Cannes festival. I should certainly like to congratulate everyone who won those awards and everyone who was involved in those achievements.
I must go on to say that that plethora of awards, which is a great credit to British film makers, conceals the absence of anything resembling a structured film industry of the type that we once had in this country. British film makers scramble around in their attempts to obtain finance for projects in a way that is often disheartening and only too often demeaning. Any hon. Member who has any doubts about that fact should read the newly published history of Palace Pictures, which collapsed while it was making "The Crying Game".
Our film makers go to Hollywood to make American films because they are in huge demand there. If they are able to make films here, those films are very often financed by foreign money, and the profits therefore go abroad. The enormous profits from "Four Weddings and a Funeral" ended up—via Hamburg, where the film was registered for tax purposes—in Eindhoven.
Many congratulations to Emma Thompson on scooping up awards at the Oscars and at the BAFTA ceremony for "Sense and Sensibility", but the profits of that film will go back to Columbia Tristar Pictures, in Culver City, because it financed the film. "Restoration" won the Oscar for best costumes, but it is an American-financed film.
"The Madness of King George" won the Alexander Korda BAFTA award as the best British film, but it was mainly financed by Samuel Goldwyn Jr., whom our Select Committee visited and with whom we had discussions in

Hollywood when we went there. Mr. Goldwyn required Alan Bennett not only to "mid-Atlanticise" his original play, but to change the title from "The Madness of George III" to "The Madness of King George", because he feared that American audiences might think that it was the third film in a series about George.
Tim Roth won the BAFTA award for best supporting actor for his performance in "Rob Roy", but that was an American-financed film and the profits went back to the United States.
Our Select Committee issued its report on the British film industry 13 months ago. The report was praised throughout the film industry, which one may think is not surprising, because it met a very great many of the industry's demands. But on 6 June 1995, the then Secretary of State also lauded our report as "thorough and perceptive". I feared that that kind of praise was a prelude to total inaction, and that has indeed been the case. We made a raft of recommendations, but scarcely a single one has been implemented.
Some of the recommendations are quite simple and, I should have thought, uncontroversial. For example, we recommended a season ticket for work permits for key personnel from abroad to enter and re-enter the United Kingdom to work on films financed by inward investment. The then Secretary of State paid lip service to that recommendation, but nothing has been done about it.
We recommended the fullest support for the London Film Commission Initiative. The then Secretary of State promised "direct pump-priming support". A grant of £100,000 was given last October, but I am afraid that that was the end of that. As I shall explain later, there is great need for such a commission because the facilitating of filming, especially on location, is one of the most important ways to attract inward investment. Indeed, the lack of a commission was one of the reasons why the filming of "Braveheart" moved from Scotland to Ireland.

Mr. David Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a film is being made of a book by a Cornish author, Judith Cook? The book is set in Cornwall and the intention was to film it in Cornwall but, because of the tax incentives given in Ireland, the shooting is to move there. Is not that absolute nonsense?

Mr. Kaufman: I know Judith Cook well and have read some of her books. She wrote one about Hilda Murrell, for example. The problem affects not only the disgraceful example cited by the hon. Gentleman. The BBC has filmed British-located television productions in the Republic of Ireland because of Ireland's section 35 incentives. The hon. Gentleman's intervention leads me directly to my next point and the next recommendation made by the Select Committee.
We recommended establishing and co-ordinating regional film commissions, which would be of enormous importance in getting productions filmed not only in London but across the country. That proposal has not been taken a single step further by the Government, even though overseas experience has demonstrated how useful such commissions can be in attracting film makers. Canadians have that system, and much Hollywood film making is taking place in Canada. The American states have that system, which means that filming is done across the United States rather than in Hollywood alone.
"Judge Dredd" is an example of what I am talking about. It is a £50 million film starring Sylvester Stallone. It was brought to this country, but filming was almost brought to a halt because of obstruction in the use of the most elementary locations in the capital. When the film was completed, its producers said that they would not wish to repeat the experience and come here again, but when they read the Committee's report, they said that if the recommendations were implemented, they would happily come back to Britain. Ministers cite "Judge Dredd" as an example of inward investment, yet it is also an example of the obstruction that inward investment meets.
We also proposed something which I should have thought was completely non-controversial and which would have cost the Government no money—that the Government hold discussions with the industry about a job placement scheme. However, as far as I can tell, the Government have ignored that recommendation, too. They have certainly ignored our recommendations on immediate write-offs of production expenditure of qualifying British films, which could help to sustain indigenous film making. They have also ignored our proposals for an amelioration of the withholding tax and our recommendation for introducing a tax incentive scheme similar to Ireland's section 35 initiative. Our recommendations for attracting inward investment and promoting indigenous film making have been ignored by the Government.
Our proposal to revoke the Channel 4 funding formula—it is extraordinary that such an anomaly is allowed to remain on the statute book—was at first rejected by the previous Secretary of State. It is now being botched, and on Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill, I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State showed that she still has no real idea of what she is doing about that formula. However, Mr. Grade has made it clear that any moneys accruing to Channel 4 from the revoking of that formula will go towards indigenous film and television production.
The Minister will no doubt say that my approach is negative, that the Government have done other things and that, in any case, nothing much needs to be done because the British film industry is flourishing like the green bay tree.
Last June, the previous Secretary of State made a statement in which he promised £80 million of national lottery money for film production and distribution over five years. In October last year, the present Secretary of State announced £5.5 million of new money for 13 new British films.
As it happens, the Select Committee did not recommend cash subsidies for the film industry. We do not believe in them or regard them as appropriate. We do not believe in subsidising manufacturing, of which the British film industry is a part as well as being an artistic endeavour. However, if the Government promised £80 million of national lottery money for film production, they should have at least fulfilled their promise. The Government promised that film would obtain 15 per cent. of all national lottery arts funds but, so far, it has received 4.07 per cent. What the Government claimed as a great initiative is not being carried out.
The Government promised an advisory committee to recommend steps necessary to improve access to capital markets for film makers. That is extremely important because banks in this country are extraordinarily backward-looking in that respect. I and my colleagues had discussions with the Lord Mayor of London and some of his advisers in the hope that we could obtain such an advance but, so far, we have not done so. The establishment of the advisory committee promised by the Government was not even announced until December. The names of those involved have been announced, but we have yet to see any positive results of its work.
The Secretary of State promised a feasibility study into establishing a west end showcase dedicated to British films. Ten months later, consultants have just been appointed and terms of reference agreed. Indeed, we have gone backwards.
In its report, the Select Committee listed aspects of finance and assistance for British film making and drew attention to the Eurimages scheme. That scheme provided funding for 55 UK co-production films between 1993 and 1995. Quite inexplicably, the Government have now withdrawn from the scheme at a saving of £2 million. Unlike our Government, other countries accept an obligation to provide incentives for their film industries. Although its cost-effectiveness has been questioned, Ireland has now renewed its section 35 incentive at a modified rate for another three years. Even the Isle of Man is extending its tax credit scheme for film and television production.
The result of section 35 in Ireland has been phenomenal. The expenditure on film and television production in the Republic has risen from 2 million punts in 1992 to 180 million punts last year. Although the direct trade-off between tax revenue forgone and gain to the Irish Treasury may not have worked out precisely as had been hoped, the multiplier effect in Ireland has been of great value, as has the linking of section 35 with training young Irish men and women in film production. It is required that they are attached to film productions.
Compared with that 180 million punts attracted to the Republic in 1995, in Britain, despite the fact that expenditure has risen substantially in recent years, total investment in UK-linked production in the UK fell last year by 3.4 per cent. to £420.79 million. The figures are not directly comparable. It is difficult to obtain such figures. Nevertheless, there is an enormous disparity between that £420 million in the UK and the 180 million punts, taking into account the fact that we have nearly 20 times the Republic's population.
Of course, "Braveheart", the Oscar winner for best picture, is the most telling example. It is of course about a great Scottish hero, and it was decided to film it in Scotland. Pre-production work and a few weeks' filming took place there. Production was then moved to Ireland because Mel Gibson not only became aware of section 35 incentives, but was given assistance with, for example, extras for battle scenes, which was simply not available in this country. Therefore, of the £35 million spent on that high-budget epic about a Scottish hero, £3 million was spent in the United Kingdom and about £30 million in Ireland.
Britain per capita probably has the greatest roster of film-making talent in the world. Yet in film production per million population in 1995, the UK was behind not


only the United States, but France, Italy, Spain, Australia, Denmark, Finland and Norway, as well as Ireland. Only west Germany was behind us.
Our screens are swamped by American films. Last year, 83 per cent. of box office receipts in British cinemas were for American films, compared with 8.6 per cent. for UK films. In 1994, the latest year for which I have available figures, box office receipts from national films were higher in France, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Australia and Spain than in Britain.
I repeat that I am not calling for subsidies for the British film industry or for the stringent and in many ways absurd bureaucratic controls imposed by the French, under which they even lay down the nights on which films can be shown on television. I am calling for incentives. As the Select Committee report made clear, we are not asking for incentives that favour the film industry and single it out. We are asking for incentives that are available to certain other industries.
It is ludicrous, for example, that the withholding tax does not apply in the same stringent way to Barbra Streisand when she comes here to record a CD as it would if she came here to make a film. It is ridiculous that the castle built at Shepperton studios for the filming of the Sean Connery and Richard Gere film "First Knight" was regarded as a capital asset and therefore not available for write-off, although of course the moment that the film was finished, the castle was of no use to anybody. It ought to have been written off. The Select Committee asks for the same treatment for film making as is already available for television, sound recording and even shipbuilding.
Let me make it clear that although the domestic audience for films exhibited in theatres is not large—even though it has doubled in recent years—film making is not a marginal industry. It is a $53 billion-a-year global business. It is bigger than the music industry, it is expanding at about 8 per cent. a year, and, most important for us, it is predominantly an English-speaking industry. We have the huge advantage that the lingua franca of film in the world is English, and we are the custodians of the language.
More than 70 per cent. of films worldwide are in English. Yet when Kenneth Branagh made "Much Ado About Nothing", he was ordered by Samuel Goldwyn Jr. to cast Hollywood stars regardless of whether they were suitable. As I have said, when Alan Bennett adapted "The Madness of George III" for the screen, he was made to mid-Atlanticise it. The cast of Branagh's new film of "Hamlet" includes Robin Williams and Jack Lemmon—neither of whom is known as one of the world's foremost Shakespearean actors. Laurence Olivier never had to put up with that.
In this centenary year of British cinema, we can celebrate the contribution by the British industry, of some of the greatest films ever made, the role of some of the greatest directors in world cinema, and the contributions of marvellous actors and brilliant scriptwriters. A new century of cinematic endeavour in Britain is about to begin, in which our film makers not only should demonstrate their own genius, but ought to make British films whose profits return to this country, to fund further indigenous film making, instead of going to Holland, Tokyo and elsewhere.
Film is not only an important industry, but it is a voice for Britain and a face for Britain, and it provides a view of Britain from Britain by Britons. We have the talent.

I deeply regret that the Government do not have the will and resolution to give that British talent the opportunity to make truly British films.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am delighted to be speaking in this debate, for three reasons. First, this is the first occasion on which I have spoken during a morning sitting of the House since the previous experiment in 1969. So I am not making a habit of such early-morning sittings. On that previous occasion, I remember speaking on a Bill to reform the House of Lords—a feature film that I believe that the Labour party is going to make again and is billing as a forthcoming attraction. It might fill this House, but it will not play in Peoria.
The second reason why I am very glad to speak is that I warmly support the excellent report of the Select Committee on National Heritage. I congratulate the Select Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), on it. It owes a great deal to his personal enthusiasm and commitment to the industry, and, like him, I support all its recommendations.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Hear, hear.

Mr. Baker: Jolly good. I am glad that the Labour party spokesman is saying, "Hear, hear." I shall be interested to hear his speech and the commitment that he makes to the report.
The third reason why I am glad to speak is that, for some 18 months in the 1980s, I found myself the Minister responsible for the British film industry—the responsibility that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage now has. Just after the 1983 election victory—yes, those were the days—I had added to my responsibilities as Minister for Information Technology that for the publishing and film industries. It was the first time that the responsibility for communicating technologies came together under one Minister. I drew several conclusions from that.
The first was that responsibility should not lie with the Department of Trade and Industry and the second was that responsibility for broadcasting should not lie with the Home Office. I was glad to be the first Home Secretary to recommend that responsibility for broadcasting should be moved to a new Department and I think that my proposal led to the creation of the Department of National Heritage. We now have in that Department full responsibility for all communicating technologies involving film. One of the great advantages that the British film industry has is the English language. If there is one Department that has responsibility for the development of the potential of the English language, it is the Department of National Heritage.
When I was responsible for the film industry in 1983–84, I put together a package of support. Among several proposals, it included support for that excellent institution, the British Film School, which is a real centre of excellence, and the removal of the Eady levy because I thought that recycling in the industry was not the right way in which to support the film industry. The essential element of that package was that tax incentives would be available to people who wanted to invest in British films. My whole package was based on that idea.
Unfortunately, that main pillar was struck down by the Chancellor of the day, now Lord Lawson, in his reform of corporation tax, because he removed all tax incentives. Being a mere Minister of State, I was not informed of his decision before the Budget, so the main pillar of that proposal, which would have built on the successes of the film industry, was struck away and I was left with a rag-bag of proposals rather similar to the statements on the film industry that we have had recently from the Government.
I strongly support, therefore, what the Committee says. In 1983–84, film admissions to cinemas were 53 million to 54 million a year; admissions are now 124 million a year. I can claim absolutely no credit for that increase over the years. It is due to a variety of factors—

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Why not?

Mr. Baker: My natural modesty would not allow me to claim credit for the increase. It is due to a variety of factors, one of which is a change in social behavioural patterns. Others are the cleaning up of old cinemas and the creation of multi-screen complexes. Above all, the increase is due to the making of better films, because, ultimately, that is what pulls people back into the cinema.
The sad history of the British film industry is that it has erratic and inconsistent bursts of real excellence. In the 1980s, we had "Chariots of Fire", "Local Hero" and a clutch of other films, but that burst sputtered out, largely as a result of the removal of tax incentives in the 1984 Budget. There have since been intermittent bursts of great glory, as the right hon. Member for Gorton said, such as "The Madness of King George", "Four Weddings and a Funeral" and "Restoration". But what has not happened in the past 20 years in the British film industry is the build-up of a critical mass. That is disappointing.
As the right hon. Member for Gorton said, the talent is here. The acting talent is here, the writing talent is here, the producing talent is here and the directing talent is here. When it comes to the technological manipulation of images and related areas, we are the world's centre. We should build on that and there is a great opportunity here for the Government.
It will not be adequate for the Government to say, "Well, it is going very well. There has been quite good investment, some of the studios have been revived and Warner has invested £75 million in multiplex screens around London." That is all very well. However, the opportunity is much greater than what has been achieved.
There was a conference last year at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary attended. One of its purposes was to try to enhance the potential of our country, and one of the things on which it focused was the importance of the English language. Central to that is software and film production. I believe that the Government's response so far has not been adequate.
The right hon. Member for Gorton made it clear, as does the report, that those of us who support the Committee's proposals are not asking for extra special treatment for the film industry. In many cases, we are asking for parity of treatment. As the right hon. Gentleman said, if a film is made for television facilities

in this country, one gets the 100 per cent. write-off. If, however, a film is made for the cinema, one is left with capital assets, such as a castle, stuck on one's books and they are written off over three years.
I do not believe that it is defensible for the Treasury to say that there should not be parity of tax treatment. I believe that there should be and that there is an unanswerable argument. I do not see the logic of the Treasury's position. I suspect that in his heart, my hon. Friend the Minister supports parity of treatment, but that the Treasury and the Inland Revenue will not allow it. That would not surprise me, because their job is largely one of negation.
When the history of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is written, as long as he does not write it himself, two points will be made. The first will be that his economic judgment on the whole has been good and right. I do not expect any Opposition Member to agree with that, but I believe that impartial observers will say that he has got it right and that the Governor of the Bank of England has got it wrong. The second point will be that on tax, his approach has been unimaginative and not very exciting—a matter of trying harder next year or trying harder later this year.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Minister will relate those comments to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury. There is an unanswerable case for parity of treatment for the production costs of films in relation to the television industry and sound recording.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Gorton that there should not necessarily be direct production subsidies, such as money from the lottery. I would much prefer to operate within a generous and incentive-laden tax system. However, if subsidy is the course on which the Government have embarked and if money is to be made available, the amount available should be the amount that has been promised. The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been a promise of £80 million over five years and that so far, only £4.5 million had been made available. When my hon. Friend the Minister stops talking to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), I shall ask him specifically—[Interruption.] I am so glad that my hon. Friend is now back in his place.
Like the right hon. Member for Gorton, I do not believe that subsidy is the right way. However, if that is the course that the Government have followed and if £80 million is to be made available—so far, only £4.5 million has been made available—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will announce that there will be another £10 million or so today and that he can chart how the remaining £75 million will be made available. That may be the only card that my hon. Friend has left to play today. I believe that the Select Committee's proposals should be accepted.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Gorton that investment in the film industry is mobile. Investment moves from country to country and goes to the countries that have the best facilities and the best tax treatment. Therefore, we have to set out our stall to attract that investment. Certain factors bring people to invest in this country. I think that I am right in saying that about 70 per cent. of all films are made in English, but that we happen to make only 4 per cent. in this country. We really must do better than that.
I am not talking about propping up an ailing industry; the film industry is not a lame duck industry, but a very successful one. However, the natural hurdles that the tax


regime places in front of the industry should be removed. I very much hope that the Minister will be forthcoming in his reply. I, having held responsibility in this area, suspect that he will be totally constrained by the Treasury, but that is not good enough.
I hope that my hon. Friend realises that my vote is keeping the Government in office, as are the votes of my hon. Friends the Members for Southport (Mr. Banks) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). We expect our voices to be listened to very carefully in these matters. After all, there is an open door and we should push at it. The British film industry is life-enhancing and it is actually rather good.
I hope that for all those reasons, my hon. Friend the Minister will be sympathetic and warm to the Select Committee report. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gorton on producing the report. He will continue to have my strong support for the Committee' s proposals.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: I am proud and privileged to be a member of the Select Committee on National Heritage, which is so ably led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). However, that leaves me with a problem, because my right hon. Friend's expertise on the film industry is so great that I cannot think of anyone else in the House with such a depth of knowledge, and it is therefore difficult to follow the speech that he made on behalf of the Select Committee.
In the few moments that I have for my speech, I shall be positive. The former Secretary of State for National Heritage, now the Secretary of State for Health, said of the Select Committee's report:
The Government welcomes your report, and the clear, detailed and perceptive overview it provides of the history and current state of the industry".
I welcome those words, because, although the Committee has produced many reports, I feel that the best one so far is our report on the film industry. The Committee took a lot of stick when it announced that it intended to report on that industry, so I welcome the former Secretary of State's statement.
The right hon. Gentleman continued:
Like the Committee, we believe the United Kingdom film industry is an important one, whose skills, talents and creativity have justly earned an international reputation"—
the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), too, said as much—
the Government has been able to accept a number of the recommendations in your report".
As children ask for many presents at Christmas, knowing that they will not get all of them, although the Committee has made a lot of recommendations I am realistic enough to know that they will not all be accepted by the Government.
The response to the Committee's tax recommendations was as follows:
tax decisions are by tradition announced in the Budget. This paper cannot, therefore, respond conclusively to this area of the Committee's Report. Nonetheless the Government will certainly bear in mind the Committee's recommendations, and the logic which underpins them".
So I shall not refer to the tax recommendations either.
I am delighted that the Government agree that we have a film industry in which we can take genuine pride. There is considerable opportunity for growth, as is shown by the following statistics. United Kingdom cinema admissions have increased from an all-time low of 58 million in 1984 to 124 million in 1994—a notable growth. The number of screens in the United Kingdom increased from 1,250 in 1985 to 1,929 in 1994, and overall investment was up from £245 million in 1986 to £457 million in 1994.
Despite those encouraging figures, the industry has two main problems. First, British films captured only 2.5 per cent. of British box office receipts in 1993, compared with the United States product, which took a 94.2 per cent. share. So we have a long way to go to catch up with the American film industry. The United Kingdom industry is a cottage industry in comparison.
Nevertheless, there are opportunities, because the United Kingdom cinema audience is growing fast, and Britain offers skills and facilities of international renown, as well as the advantage of the English language, which the right hon. Member for Mole Valley mentioned. The Americans are making good use of those factors.
Another major problem for the United Kingdom film industry is the fact that most of the distribution in this country is in the hands of the United States majors. As a result, many British films have great difficulty in gaining large-scale distribution here. One witness who came before the Select Committee, representing the Cinema Exhibitors Association, runs a cinema in Withington in Manchester, and he spoke at length about the difficulties that private cinemas experience in trying to show major films.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Does the hon. Gentleman share my sadness at the fact that, when the major American production companies approached what were then the large cinema chains in the United Kingdom, Rank and EMI, and said that there was a future for the film industry not only in the United States but in the United Kingdom, that that industry would not be permanently dominated by television, but that cinemas would have to be refurbished and made more attractive, Rank and EMI rejected the idea, so that now, sadly, the large cinema chains in the United Kingdom, the UCIs and the MGMs, are based in the United States?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes; the hon. Gentleman is a little ahead of me, I shall come to that point in a few moments. Most of the new multiplex cinemas are owned by American companies, and account for 33 per cent. of all United Kingdom screens.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report of October 1994 found that a complex monopoly existed. It did not attribute the low proportion of United Kingdom films shown in cinemas to any conspiracy but recognised that the United States studios are skilled in producing and promoting films that the United Kingdom public wish to see. However, the report suggested that the Director General of Fair Trading should monitor the market.
On the positive side, there is a new factor that could help to promote and develop the United Kingdom's film industry. The Arts Council of England has plans for using lottery money to encourage the production and distribution of films. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has already mentioned those plans.
There is an absence of significant investment in the film industry in the United Kingdom, because the risks are high and the returns volatile and unpredictable. I therefore


welcome the Government's proposal to convene an advisory committee of representatives from the leading financial institutions and production companies to discuss and promote ways of addressing those problems.
Large-scale subsidy is favoured by neither the Government nor the industry. Nevertheless, since 1986 the Government have supported British Screen Finance Ltd., with an annual contribution to help to finance feature films. I drew attention to that body many times in our Committee deliberations, and welcomed what it had done. To date, British Screen Finance has invested in 101 feature films, 86 of which involved directors, writers, actors or producers embarking on their first or second project. I welcome that development.
The Government have announced their intention to use lottery money to support British film makers as British Screen Finance has done, and their hope that the lottery support will encourage the private sector to back British films. I hope so, too.
The Arts Council estimates that it could spend more than £70 million up to the year 2000 on film production, which would enable it to attract more private sector support, and to increase the level of film support and the range of investment opportunities. It also estimates that it could spend more than £14 million up to the year 2000 on distribution and cinema refurbishment. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) is not listening now, because I am talking about refurbishing cinemas, and I hope that what I have said meets the point that he made earlier.
I am delighted that the Government welcomed the Select Committee's report. It also drew attention to training, and consequently the Government propose to lead discussions at ministerial level on how the Committee's proposals can best be given effect. That is because its skilled work force is one of the UK film industry's main strengths. Our seedcorn lies with our youth. Youngsters who want to study dance or drama and apply for local authorities often find that grants are discretionary, not mandatory. That is a great tragedy. I hope that the Government will consider that.
I would have liked to comment on many of the Government's other responses to the Select Committee's recommendations, but time will not allow it. However, I draw attention to the Committee's visit to the United States of America and our two-day visit to Ireland to discuss their film industries. I was surprised by what I saw in both countries. I was impressed by the Irish film initiative, which encouraged an increase in film and television production from £1 million to £100 million over two years. That is a tremendous leap forward.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has said that he will not venture into the subject of taxation, because it is primarily through that that the Irish Government have attracted film makers to Ireland. I hope that he will say that a 100 per cent. write-off of production costs in the first year would be a positive way of enabling the British film industry to achieve its immense potential.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government have said that they will not deal with tax

matters in this debate because they are for the Chancellor. I was keeping to the recommendations that the Government have put before the House. Having visited Ireland, met Mr. Higgins, of whom I shall say more, and examined their section 35, I know that the Irish tax incentives encouraged Mel Gibson to stop filming in Scotland—it was a film about Scottish heritage—and take the whole production to Ireland. I would have liked to speak at length on that, but I am trying to keep to the brief.
Ireland's tremendous leap forward was due in no small measure to the enthusiasm and drive of its Minister for Arts, Michael D. Higgins. I was impressed by that gentleman, as was the whole Committee. I do not want to pour cold water, but I am saddened that we have not in recent times had an Arts Minister with a similar drive and love of the arts. The heritage and arts portfolios have been safe havens for Ministers who have had difficulties in their previous ministerial posts. I hope that I am wrong, but none of our Ministers has matched the drive and enthusiasm of Mr. Higgins. However, I always live in hope and I look to our present Minister to match them.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I want to support a generally well-received report and pay tribute to the excellent and well-informed chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). It was the Committee's basic intention that the report should bring about steps to improve the British film industry. To be fair, it does that against a promising backdrop in terms of the market for film in Britain. We have heard about the massive increase in cinema audiences and the huge improvement in facilities for exhibition, especially the increase in multiplexes. I shall be looking for the development of Kidderminster town centre to include a multiplex cinema.
We also heard of the increase in the number of British produced films, at least when compared with the low levels of the past 10 years, and the increase, to £176 million, in expenditure on films made in this country by British and foreign producers. That is small compared with what it could be, but it is evidence of a buoyant market. The best evidence of that is the expenditure in the UK on film over the past 12 years, which, according to the Department of National Heritage, has increased by some 500 per cent. in real terms. That is a buoyant market in which the British film industry should be specifically involved.
One problem with the industry is that it is difficult to define a British film. Does it involve a film being produced in Britain, the genesis of the idea or the people involved? Secondly, the film industry is, by definition, footloose. I have reservations about the consistency of the position of people in the film industry who bemoan the fact that they cannot make films in Britain but who, as soon as an opportunity presents itself, zoom off to Hollywood. They take large salaries and sit there thinking of nice warm beer and sandwiches back in good old blighty.
Thirdly, the British film industry is heavily fragmented compared with the American monoliths. As a result, there is no continuity of supply. We noticed that only seven of 49 British films last year had a budget of more than £6 million, while the average for the US product made in Britain was £22 million. More than that, the mortality rate of feature film production companies in Britain is very high.
Three issues must be addressed in acting on the report. First, there is the vertical integration of production, distribution and exhibition, and the huge power of the US and Japanese conglomerates. In what is, in essence, an international market, we have only 7.25 per cent. of the world market. No film will succeed, especially if it is in English—that is a two-edged sword in this case—unless it is oriented at the international market and especially the US market. Such integration, especially in the distribution and exhibition markets, will operate to the disadvantage of British film makers unless they have access to it. I note that the 1994 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report said that the commission would consult on alignment and minimum exhibition periods. It would be helpful if the Government could say what progress has been made in those discussions.
Although we are not likely to get worldwide integration in the British film industry, one of the Government's responses to the report, which, after all, was brought out just under a year ago, was an advisory committee to consider the problem of integration. Again, I would like to hear what the Government say about that.
To ensure continuity for film production companies, it is important that the issue of tax should be addressed. That has been well and truly rehearsed today, so I will not go on about it. However, only to say, as the Government's response does, that venture capital trusts and enterprise initiative schemes are the answer to the lack of continuity is mistaken. I suspect that the amount of money going into VCTs and EISs for film production finance is disappointing. That calls for more general tax write-offs.
The second major issue is the sort of films that the British film industry makes. There has been slight confusion about whether the British film industry is, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) said, a cottage industry making art films or one designed to compete substantively on the world stage. I have reservations about the Arts Council using subsidies to get more involved in film production. That would encourage art house films that may satisfy in terms of their intellectual artistic integrity but do not fully build the British film industry so that it can reach its potential. If the Arts Council of England is going to give £70 million of lottery money by the year 2000 to independent film companies, it should be conditional on a minimum budget size for films and be done on the basis of an active partnership with distributors or exhibitors to ensure that those films get a commercial hearing.
Another slight confusion is the role of television and feature films. Although the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have to make available 25 per cent. of their product to independent film production companies, that could well be increased. The amount of film being shown on television has not increased significantly in the past 10 years and that is a valuable market for the industry.
On the other hand, the pricing policy has to be genuine. I have had representations from an independent film producer who talked about an effective cartel on pricing between the BBC, ITV and Channel 4—it is even proposed by Channel 5—which he said had contributed to the fact that television production, which was the 17th largest contributor to the balance of payments in 1974, has now fallen into an adverse balance.
We must deal with the problems of tax relief, attitude and structure in the British film industry, as well as taking commercial advantage of the large and increased market that is available to film.
Finally, the recommendations of the National Heritage Select Committee, on beefing up the London Film Commission Initiative and on its co-ordinating role with regional film commissions, which the Government dismissed slightly, are very important. One of the things that will sell Britain is for international audiences to see that films are made well here and are associated with different parts of our heritage.
It is interesting that "Braveheart", although it was not made in Scotland, has already had a significant impact on Scottish tourism. In Stirling, the national Wallace monument has seen an increase in visitors in the three months since the exhibition of the film from 10,000 to 30,000, which gives us a sign of the film industry's impact on another responsibility of the Department of National Heritage, tourism, which is the fourth largest industry in this country. I think that the report is excellent and the Government would do well to heed it, particularly the tax relief aspects.

Mr. John Maxton: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on his introduction to this short debate and on leading us—I am also a member of the Select Committee on National Heritage—in producing the report.
I shall limit my remarks to the Scottish film industry, to some extent following on from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). First, I must express surprise at the fact that the representative of the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), is not present for this debate as she has been trying to make considerable play of the role of the Scottish film industry and the Scots in it. Although I share the delight of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest that tourism is coming to Scotland as a result of "Braveheart", as a politician I have reservations about the way in which the SNP blatantly tried to use it to further its cause, particularly when it is such historical nonsense—at least, a large part of it is. It may be a good cowboy film, but it has not got a great deal to do with Scottish history. Although I obviously cannot use the language that Mr. Billy Connolly used to describe it, I certainly share a fair amount of his sentiments.
The Scottish film industry has been undergoing something of a revival with not only "Braveheart" and "Rob Roy" but, more important, films such as "Shallow Grave", "Small Faces" and, of course, "Trainspotting", which represent a much more thoughtful side of Scottish film production.
It may be unusual for me to do so, but I must take the opportunity to say that, at least in Scotland, the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland have gone further than their colleagues in the Department of National Heritage to try to bring some coherence to the Scottish film industry. In New York recently, the Secretary of State announced that he is going to streamline the various agencies in Scotland into a new Scottish screen agency, bringing together the Scottish Film Council, the Scottish Film Production Fund, Scottish Broadcast and Film Training Ltd. and Scottish Screen Locations. That is probably a step in the right direction, because it will give a coherence to all those organisations and will mean that they will start to work together.
The Secretary of State has also committed public spending of £3 million to film in Scotland in the next three years. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will promise today that an equivalent £30 million will be spent on film in England and Wales. Using the Barnett formula, that is roughly the sum that should be used to get an equivalency.
In my view, it was not just the tax incentives that caused "Braveheart" to go to Ireland, or even just the use of the army for extras, but the excellence of the Ardmore studio, which ensures that, when one has to move out of location because of bad weather or whatever, a studio facility is available close to hand in which one can do other production work.
The recent Hydra report in Scotland on the film industry suggested building a studio complex of the same type as Ardmore studio just outside Dublin—or even better, in Scotland—and the Secretary of State is committed to considering the viability of the suggestion. That would allow studio work to be done in Scotland, as well as major location work. Then we would have to do some post-production development in Scotland, to ensure the continuation of the whole package and the production of film in Scotland.
Finally—I am aware that the two Front-Bench spokesmen want to speak—I wish to comment on the continuing convergence of film and television production, which is the one point on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and I mildly diverge. Increasingly, that will also mean computer work, the Internet, and so on; a convergence is taking place in the way in which we produce all those. We have to be wary of not taking account of the base of directors, actors, production teams and so forth that our strong television work gives us.
I will finish on Scotland as I started on it; that is true in Scotland too. Without BBC Scotland producing more than it produces, without Scottish Television producing more than at present, giving employment to the directors, actors, producers and so forth in Scotland, it would not be possible to have a strong Scottish film industry. I hope, therefore, that when we consider the matter we take that into account as well as simply considering the film industry separately from the rest of audio-visual production.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue; I also congratulate his fellow members of the Select Committee on National Heritage. I listened with great interest to what he said, and agreed with him on a number of points, particularly on tax concessions in preference to subsidy.
I also listened with great interest to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). It is frightening to think that his last contribution on a Wednesday morning was in 1969. when I was only eight years old. I also agreed with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) about tourism. Regrettably, a number of aspects have been touched on all too briefly in this debate, and tourism is one of the biggest earners for this country. I entirely endorse what he said about the Irish Republic and Scotland.
One of the biggest obstacles to building up the film industry appears simply to be producing even more popular films. As the Select Committee report makes clear, however, much more could be done to create a more welcoming atmosphere for movie makers in this country.
The British Film Commission has been successful in encouraging film producers to produce more films in the United Kingdom. During 1995–96, more films were made in this country than in any year since 1965. I back t he BFC's proposals for a production permit, for season tickets for key personnel, and for an accelerated process of work permits in general. I am also keen to see a greater interest taken by the European Investment Bank, especially in helping to reduce the risks incurred by banks and institutions in financing audiovisual projects.
The Irish Republic was successful in creating a more welcoming atmosphere for film making. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), particularly about the Scottish National party, but so far as "Braveheart" is concerned, it is going a bit too far to imagine that we could put our defence forces at the disposal of film makers. The armed forces have been a little busy of late as a result of the renewal of IRA terrorism, particularly in Northern Ireland.
In addition, when audiences around the world view "Braveheart", they do not think of visiting the Irish Republic. When they think about going to the places where the battles took place, they think of Scotland. We should not encourage the production of films in this country that encourage tourism elsewhere.
I am sorry that I do not have more time to touch on some of the nitty-gritty issues. I have listened to the remarks that have been made about tax concessions, and I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is itching to get to the Dispatch Box to tell us about the tax concessions that the Labour party would introduce if it had the opportunity to do so. I think that Labour's current economic policies are a recipe for disaster, in the film industry and elsewhere.
The role of the British Film Commission to act as an inward investment body would be far harder if we did not have one of the lowest effective corporate rates of tax and one of the most liberal employment regimes in Europe. Signing up to the social chapter will not do a great deal for the British film industry. It is vital that we look at the issue of tax concessions—it is the way forward. I hope that that it is something that the Treasury, rather than just the Department of National Heritage, will consider.

Mr. Mark Fisher: This is an excellent report, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have recognised, and I welcome the chance to debate it. The report is of real substance, and relates to an important industry. Therefore, one and a half hours in which to debate it—although welcome—is too short a time, as the way that speeches have been squeezed demonstrates. It is April 1996, and we are debating an important report that was published on 8 March 1995. We should have debated the report sooner, although it is timely that we are debating it in the centenary year of the British film industry.
The report has been needed for a long time, because the Government have perversely been neglecting our film industry for years, and have comprehensively failed to


produce a policy. As hon. Members from both sides of the House have recognised, the report is the bones of a policy. I hope that the Government listen to it, and that we will have a positive response from the Minister.
This is a thorough report: it asked the right questions, it took the right evidence, it went to the right places and—in my view—it came to the right conclusions. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Committee. Everyone knows his commitment to, huge knowledge and understanding of, and love and passion for, the industry. The work of the Committee, and the people who gave evidence to it, was very good.
I care for the film industry a lot, having worked in it for eight or nine years in the 1960s and early 1970s in virtually every role—from documentary producer and writer, to editor, to negative cutter, to location manager and assistant producer. I was a terrific failure in the industry, because I failed to raise the money for the sorts of film that I wanted to make.
In the 1960s, the film industry appeared to be in decline, and, as my family and the number of my children got larger and the film industry got smaller, the two could not sustain each other. What appeared to be a small industry in the 1960s is something that we would very much like to have now. The problems we faced in the 1960s—of not being able to sustain investment year on year and of having peaks and troughs—have remained with us.
At last we have a report that says all the right things not only about the issues facing the industry but about the importance of film and the film industry. The report recognises the economic importance of the industry: the huge international industry of £53 billion—and that is without the wider audiovisual industries of which this is a key but only one part; the employment implications for the country; the relationship with trade—Samuel Goldwyn said that trade follows the film and he was right, as the Americans have demonstrated; and questions of national identity, pride and culture.
This is an important industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, it is something that we are good at in this country. We have the creative talent but, too often, it does not have the opportunity to work in this country. It is not perverse that people go abroad—they have to do so to work. People such as Nick Hytner would like to make films in this country, but there are more opportunities to do so on the west coast of America. As my right hon. Friend said, we have the English language. We are uniquely well placed, and we ought to be taking advantage of that.
The report concentrates on the right problems—it looks at funding and at how we should have a structure of incentives and other initiatives to sustain funding or to provide a critical mass. It comes to the right conclusions on all those things. It is right to look at accelerated write-offs in paragraph 187, and it is right to look at and approve tax incentives—later, I shall refer to the types of tax incentive that I think are best. The report looks at the business incentive scheme, the enterprise investment scheme and the Irish Finance Act 1988, section 35, which would need to be adapted for our fiscal regime but takes the right approach.
The only area of tax reform with which I have difficulty in the report is its emphasis on withholding tax. There is not sufficient evidence that American films are being deterred because of that. My right hon. Friend is quite right: there are ridiculous anomalies about it in relation to the music recording industry, and the treatment of actors and other talent and film directors who are not caught by it. However, I do not see any evidence that American-financed feature films are being deterred. I am more sceptical.
In its excellent approach, the report is right not to go back to the days of the Eady levy. I also pay tribute to the report on arts funding, which came out a couple of weeks ago, but which has not had the attention it ought to have had. I hope that we will debate that report much sooner than a year from now, because it is very important. Obviously, the Select Committee is faced with many issues.
The report is not quite about the British film industry; it concentrates on feature film finance and production. The Select Committee did not have time to look at the other facets of the industry—training, exhibition, education, the relationship to new technologies, production and distribution. The quality of its work on feature film finance shows that it will come to interesting and important conclusions. As this is such a good report, I hope that the my right hon. Friend will go back to the Committee and extend the range of issues it examines in future.
The bipartisan spirit of the debate may be broken, because I believe that the Government have not done well in this area. The report's conclusions implicitly criticise the Government's lack of interest and action.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. He warmly welcomed the report, but its recommendations are specific. Will he commit his party to implementing those recommendations, and if so, which ones? We can all talk of how much we love the British film industry, but if, by any chance, the Labour party wins the general election, what will it do to support that industry?

Mr. Fisher: I was going to take the Government to task before returning to the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes.
The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) was probably the last film Minister who had an interest in and passion for the industry; since then, things have gone from bad to the worse. The Films Act 1985 began dismantling the structural support: probably correctly, it abolished the Eady levy, but it did not replace it with anything. When, later, capital allowances were abandoned, the industry was left in a much worse position fiscally than any comparable English language film industry. The Government put nothing in their place.
Although Mrs. Thatcher took a personal interest, held high-profile meetings at Downing street, asked all the right people and listened to all the right evidence, she did nothing. I suspect that that is another example of the DTI, the DNH—then known as the Office of Arts and Libraries—and the Treasury being unable to agree. Without cross-departmental co-operation and work, we shall not get this industry right. As every Member who has spoken has said, the key is not subsidy or direct grant aid but fiscal incentive, so the Treasury must be brought on board. We had no action, no policy and no understanding.
The debate cannot pass without the Government being held to book for the disgrace about Eurimages. As was said, for a £2 million ante-up dividend, as it were, we are losing out on £40 million to £50 million of co-production. Everyone in Europe wants to be our co-production partner. The Minister knows that something went terribly wrong. It slipped through people's fingers, I suspect because they did not understand its significance. I suspect that the Foreign Office was as angry as we were about our withdrawal from Eurimages, because it did understand, as did the rest of the world. The Minister should say something about Eurimages, and make a commitment to rejoining as soon as possible.
I now come to the point made by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley. The Labour party will have a policy. It will be an updating of, and similar to, the policy that we published in 1991–92, which, I am glad to say, was developed with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who is now the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Labour's trade and industry spokesman before the last general election.
If and when we are elected, we shall at last have, in my hon. Friend, a Chancellor of the Exchequer who knows about, understands and is committed to the cultural industries generally, and the film industry in particular. His knowledge is perhaps not as great as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, the Chairman of the Committee, but it is considerable. Although, obviously, what I shall say now must receive the approval of the various committees of the Labour party before it becomes policy, I am able to give an idea this morning of the direction in which we are moving, and of our priorities and approach.
Our policy is largely based on the report. It is a matter not of subsidy but of fiscal incentives—accelerated write-offs, an adaptation of section 35 of the Irish Finance Act 1988. It is not difficult to do, and we shall do it, although we shall do it, unlike the Irish, for a specified period—probably of five years, with a review after two. It should not be a permanent regime. It is a way of kick-starting, and we shall monitor how and whether it is working.
The industry has problems of internal inflation, and such fiscal incentives may attract investment for investment's sake rather than for feature film production's sake. Nevertheless, our approach is right and practicable, and a Labour Government will seek to adopt it. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient, and we would need to develop the Green Light fund, the £5 million national lottery fund administered by British Screen—ably managed by Simon Perry. We shall consider with interest new ideas being floated for studio franchises. We shall certainly rejoin Eurimages.
We shall have a wider policy, covering training, educational, national and regional film production—including Scotland, which is doing so well—post-production, and relationships within the audiovisual industry. We have in this country a fast-growing multi-media sector and a relationship between publishing, publishing and CD-ROM and film.
Perhaps we shall need to reconsider the definition of the word "film" in the 1985 Act, because the scale of budgets for CD-ROM interactive videos is about the same

as that of full-length feature films, and very profitable. We are very good at creating those interactive videos, but once again the investment is coming from Time Warner and so on. We should use our talent, but we are not making the investment. We need to, and the Labour Government will, see film in that context.
Most particularly, our attitude will be supportive of film. As the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) said, the most interesting thing about Ireland is not the fiscal incentives. The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Michael D. Higgins, is committed and passionate, and goes out and beats the drum for the Irish film industry. His commitment, wanting people to come to Ireland to make films, is as important as the fiscal incentives.
We need a Government who are equally enthusiastic about our cultural industries, and specifically about the audiovisual industries and film; we do not have one at the moment. The Labour Government will be such a Government.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I start by paying a true tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the National Heritage Select Committee. Their report is extremely valuable. Unfortunately, I have but five minutes to reply to the debate. I do not complain about that, because it is more important for as many Back Benchers as possible to say where their concerns lie than for Front-Bench Members to take up time saying what we already know.
Nevertheless, five minutes is obviously not enough time in which to describe the considerable framework of help and support for the film industry, and I hope that another time will be found for hon. Members to discuss the different elements in depth.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) rightly said that the report was not, in a sense, about the film industry, but about the important part of the film industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has deep concerns about the exhibition process in this country, which merits a speech in itself. I therefore hope that it will be possible to get a real crack at this, consonant and commensurate with the importance of the industry.
I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) said, but I am sorry if he gained the impression that the Department is not interested in the film industry; he is mistaken. Last night, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went to the premiere of "Richard III". She is extremely keen to get this matter right. I know that she would point out that not only is "Richard III" a British film, but it was made in conjunction with the National theatre—another element of the Department's interests, the National theatre having recently received funds from the national lottery.
The film pulls together several threads, and we need time to debate them, but I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend is determined to work out a policy, which I hope would have bipartisan support, to support and encourage the industry.
In the few remaining minutes, I shall speak, not ludicrously fast but as speedily as is sensible, to say as much as I can.
The Government's detailed response to the Select Committee's report was published in June 1995 in our policy paper, "The British Film Industry". Our policy addressed all the recommendations made by the Committee except for those on tax incentives, which are, as the House has noted and said this morning, a matter for my Treasury colleagues. We had no hesitation in accepting many of the Committee's recommendations, and we are now advancing the work involved in implementing them. I am sorry that time does not allow me to say in detail what that work is, but I hope that we shall find another occasion.
We have also announced further initiatives of our own, which are proceeding. The debate takes place against a background of the growing success of the British film industry. Of course, we still wish to do many things that we have not yet been able to do.
It would be quite wrong if, in concentrating—as did some hon. Members—on what still needs to be done, we failed to remember the successes of the British film industry. The recent academy awards ceremony in Los Angeles underlined once again the excellent reputation that is enjoyed by British talent across the whole range of the film makers' arts. Britons were nominated in virtually every category, from acting, directing and writing to our costume design, documentary films and animation.
All our nominees deserve high praise for achieving that recognition in such a competitive international industry. I know that the House joins me in congratulating Emma Thompson, Nick Park, Jon Blair and James Acheson on their achievements in winning Oscars.
Will there be a prospering film industry to support those talents in the future? I believe that the answer is strongly yes. Last year, 81 films were produced in the United Kingdom—the highest figure for 20 years. The total value of the films produced amounted to more than £420 million—almost seven times the equivalent figure for 1981. In real terms, the value of films produced in this country—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.

Child Support Agency

[Relevant documents: Third Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Session 1994–95 on the Investigation of Complaints against the Child Support Agency (House of Commons Paper No. 135), the Third Report from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Session 1994–95 on the Child Support Agency (House of Commons Paper No. 199), the Government Reply thereto (Cm. 2865), the Third Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Session 1995–96 on Investigation of Complaints against the Child Support Agency (House of Commons Paper No. 20), the Minutes of Evidence taken by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on 27th March (House of Commons Paper No. 330-i), the Second Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1995–96 on the Performance and Operation of the Child Support Agency (House of Commons Paper No. 50) and the Government Reply thereto (Cm. 3191).]

11 am

Mr. James Pawsey: I am pleased to introduce this short but important debate about the Child Support Agency. I am sorry that the Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is not in his place, but I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is present and I am sure that he will be a more than adequate deputy. We look forward to hearing his comments in due course.
In 1991 I, like the overwhelming majority of hon. Members, supported the establishment of the Child Support Agency. We did so in the belief that it is wrong for men and women to walk away from their parental responsibilities. I remind the House that, somewhat unusually, there was no Division on Third Reading—a fact which underlined the perceived need for the legislation.
The Child Support Agency has had a difficult birth—indeed, it has been somewhat star-crossed. I acknowledge the great efforts made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who will respond to the debate, and by the agency's chief executive to improve matters. My hon. Friend has introduced no fewer than 112 changes in the past 10 months that are designed to improve the work of the agency. He and the chief executive have grabbed the CSA by the scruff of its neck, and I have no doubt that, as the changes filter through, the instances of maladministration will decrease.
The ombudsman has identified certain serious failures in administration. He referred to
confusion over jurisdiction; breaching of confidentiality of information; delays in dealing with applications for maintenance; problems with intra-maintenance assessments; delays in enforcement action leading to loss of maintenance; and delays in passing on maintenance collected from the absent parent to the parent with care of children.
The work of the Child Support Agency touches upon some of the most difficult and sensitive aspects of people's lives. I suspect that an overwhelming majority of hon. Members have been alerted by their constituents to instances of maladministration within the Child Support Agency. This morning I shall concentrate on three specific


areas: first, the current performance of the agency; secondly, the way in which complaints are handled; and, thirdly, the granting of redress.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary recently answered questions at the Dispatch Box about the performance of the Child Support Agency. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, he said:
I noted that of the 20 cases the ombudsman looked at, some 14 involved problems which began in 1993. In that sense, his report is historic".—[Official Report, 19 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 165.]
However, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on Wednesday 27 March. On that occasion, the ombudsman said:
Miss Chant kindly admitted that old mistakes were still being made and she did not refute the fact that I included in my report cases which arose in 1995".
The ombudsman continued:
I did not want to give the impression that I was only looking at old matters. I included reference to types of case where I am investigating, but of which I had not concluded my investigation by the time I published my second special report. You will see on pages 11 and 12 of my report examples of that; you will see examples on pages 13 and 14; you will see examples on pages 15 and 16, on page 18, page 19 and page 20. These are all examples of complaints put to me about mistakes that were certainly not 1993 or 1994; these are all 1995 examples of maladministration".
My hon. Friend referred also to the ombudsman's criticisms regarding delay in transferring money from the agency to the parent with care. He pointed out, quite properly, that 97 per cent. of payments—an extraordinary figure—are now sent out within 10 days. My hon. Friend also emphasised the fact that, while the ombudsman looked at just under 200 CSA cases, the agency deals with 1.25 million cases. Therefore, two lines of defence are being advanced in response to the ombudsman's report: first, the ombudsman's investigations deal with historic difficulties; and, secondly, the Child Support Agency handles a large number of cases.
In fairness to the House, I concede that 195 investigations are not many when viewed in the context of 1.25 million cases. It might, however, assist hon. Members if I were to adopt a more global perspective. In 1994, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration received 30 complaints about the Inland Revenue, which handles between 30 million and 35 million cases each year.
Miss Chant, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, recently gave evidence to the Select Committee. She contended that, as a result of the nature of the ombudsman's work, the cases in his report were not of recent origin. She gave examples of the way in which the agency's performance had improved. She pointed out that 18 months ago the agency received 370 complaints each week from Members of Parliament and that that rate had now steadied at just under 200. I think that that is an interesting measurement of success and improvement. I appreciate that any reduction in the number of complaints is laudable, but 200 complaints from hon. Members is still a substantial number.

Mr. David Nicholson: rose—

Mr. Pawsey: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who is an indefatigable member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend is right to point out the large number of complaints that Members of Parliament continue to make to the Child Support Agency. Does he agree that the parliamentary ombudsman does not investigate every complaint that Members of Parliament make about the agency, because many of them fall into the category of generic orders which he is already investigating? My hon. Friend mentioned a figure of 195 investigations, and I must have referred a dozen complaints to the ombudsman. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the importance that the House attaches to some of the agency's successes—for example, in chasing 120,000 absent parents—it is regrettable, and damages the legislation and the persons who promoted it, that such maladministration should be continuing?

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a genuinely important point, and as it may be of interest to other hon. Members, I shall refer to it later.
When I spoke to the ombudsman this morning, he told me that, since 1 January this year, he has received 205 complaints from Members of Parliament, and that 1,500 telephone inquiries have been received by his office—50 per cent. of which referred specifically to the Child Support Agency.
Having said that, let me stress the other side of the equation. There have been a substantial number of genuine improvements to the agency's performance over the past 12 months. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister and the CSA's chief executive on their work. Their task is clearly herculean. The agency's staff have to cope with couples who have broken up, often in the most acrimonious circumstances, and with a campaign of deliberate obstruction. Piled on top of all those difficulties have been the changes to the law designed to improve the agency's operations. Such changes are necessary and beneficial but in the short term, they place an added burden on CSA staff.
I make it clear that the problems highlighted by the ombudsman are not historical. In the interests of objectivity, I must inform the House that the ombudsman advised me today that there have been
a lot of improvements made to the work of the Child Support Agency.
I am sure that the ombudsman would want me to put that comment firmly on the record.
I will refer next to maladministration and the way in which complaints about the agency are dominating the ombudsman's case load.

Mr. Michael Mates: I am glad to interrupt my hon. Friend at the moment when he is saying that the ombudsman is pleased, as we all are, with the agency's improvements. I ask my hon. Friend to address the fundamental reason that the parliamentary ombudsman was established—to serve as a backstop for the individual citizen who feels that any area of the Administration has let him down. My understanding is that, as a result of the case load, the individual citizen is


being deprived of that backup. I quote a specific example, because it may help everybody to address the problem. A constituent of mine, Mr. Jubin, made a complaint to me about maladministration by the CSA, which was looked at by the screening unit.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but interventions should be short. It sounds to me as though the hon. Gentleman is making more of a speech.

Mr. Mates: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be as brief as I can. My hon. Friend was about to address the specific question of whether the ombudsman is able to carry out the duty that Parliament gave him. I want briefly to quote one example because—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long. I cannot allow him to continue.

Mr. Mates: Then I cannot make my point.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman cannot. That is precisely correct.

Mr. Pawsey: Despite the fact that my hon. Friend was cut off in mid-flow, I understand the essential thrust of his comments. The important point to which he referred was raised also by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson).
My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) draws attention to the number of CSA cases that are reaching the ombudsman. The Select Committee will, as part of its continuing work, be taking evidence from the ombudsman about workload, the time taken to complete investigations, the number of staff and the resources available. I share my hon. Friend's concern. The ombudsman is the citizen's backstop. If the ombudsman is not seen to be performing the duties and responsibilities imposed on him by the House, that is a serious matter.
As the issue is so important, I sought advice from colleagues. The view has been taken that a number of representative cases should identify administrative shortcomings needing to be remedied, and that the resulting improvements to the system should bring general improvement—so that complaints should not have to be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner.

Mr. Mates: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Make it snappy, Mr. Mates.

Mr. Mates: I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. Forgive me, but I am raising a fundamental point—and I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will allow me to make it. The ombudsman himself is saying, "I cannot do the job that Parliament gave me to do. I acknowledge that your constituent has a complaint, but I cannot look at it because there are so many of the same type." Where does that leave the ombudsman, in his duty to look after individual cases of maladministration? If he cannot examine a case because it has been raised before, that is denying the purpose for which Parliament established the ombudsman. I hope that my hon. Friend's Committee will address that aspect.

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend made his point most succinctly. I give him the assurance that the Select Committee that I have the honour to chair will examine that specific matter. His comments emphasise the need for a complaints examiner to be established within the CSA, so that problems will not filter through to the ombudsman but can be resolved within the agency. I believe that I saw my hon. Friend, the Minister, nodding his head sagely in agreement.
As to maladministration and the agency's domination of the ombudsman's case load, complaints concerning the CSA accounted for one third of all those accepted for investigation in 1995. By the end of 1995, 195 cases were being investigated. The ombudsman has now decided to investigate only cases that appear to involve new issues or financial loss. Many other cases suggested maladministration but were not accepted for investigation. In parenthesis, I will observe that the ombudsman's office is not of the largest. It has 55 staff to deal with maladministration cases referred to the ombudsman by Departments, which is fewer than one member of staff for every 1 million of the population.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. who is a staunch member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner. I am not at all surprised to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, because he is always in attendance at meetings of the Committee.

Mr. Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments.
Does not the Parliamentary Commissioner's report state that he is extremely concerned at further reductions in staffing levels? If further cuts are made in civil servants in Departments, complaints will become more frequent. If staff are cut in Departments, they will also be cut in the ombudsman's office.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. He is right and that issue is being closely observed by the Select Committee, of which he is an important member. Throughout my time on the Select Committee, which must go back for nine years or so, we have always pressed to ensure that adequate resources exist properly to service the ombudsman's committee. It is important that I put on record the fact that resources have never been denied, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) on his point. In the ombudsman's report, he acknowledges the help given to the CSA, in the form of additional staffing, since his first special report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the agency has got the staffing right.

Mr. Pawsey: I am enjoying the interventions, but I should make some progress in order to allow other hon. Members to speak.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton suggested, many complaints submitted by Members of Parliament suggest, at face value, maladministration. They were not


accepted because they did not raise new issues and because the ombudsman's resources are finite. Therefore, those complaints do not feature in his report. The House will also understand that it takes time to recruit and train new staff.
The Select Committee was somewhat disconcerted last year to discover that the CSA did not mention the ombudsman in its complaints literature. We wonder how many additional complaints would have been made had the public been aware of the ombudsman's existence and his responsibilities. I believe, and I am sure that I am supported by other hon. Members, that complaints can be regarded as an audit of quality, but when an internal complaints system does not refer to the ombudsman, it is unwise to claim success from the smallness of the number of complaints that find their way to him.
I remind the House that the ombudsman is both impartial and independent. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said, the ombudsman is charged by Parliament itself to investigate complaints about maladministration. He is above party and departmental battles. He has no axe to grind and it is important that the House remembers that.
My second issue is complaints handling. In his recent report, the ombudsman stated:
A particularly disturbing theme in the complaints put to me is the number of individuals who have taken up their grievances with the Child Support Agency in a constructive and reasoned way without getting satisfaction. In some cases, the CSA have had matters under consideration for a very long time without resolving them. In other cases, complaints have simply not been given proper consideration or have been ignored altogether.
Mr. Reid—the ombudsman—added, in oral evidence to the Select Committee:
Far too often in the cases I have investigated, they complain to me that they write, they get no reply and when they do get a reply it is generated by a computer that knows nothing about the up-to-date circumstances.
The House will therefore not be surprised to learn that, when we took evidence from Miss Chant, we specifically asked about local complaints handling. She believed that the delegation of case responsibility to local offices would help with the efficient handling of complaints. I was, however, more than a little concerned at the lack of firm measures being advanced to improve complaints handling. Indeed, the failure to deal competently with complaints at an early stage suggests that there should be fresh initiatives within the agency. In my view, the agency should be given a maximum time after which complaints about maladministration will be considered. I look forward specifically to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's response on that point.
I remind the House that one third of all complaints last year to the Parliamentary Commissioner concerned the CSA. That means that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is carrying the burden of an ineffective internal complaints system. The Select Committee welcomes the recent announcement about a complaints examiner, similar to the revenue adjudicator. That is good news, and I am delighted by it. The agency, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the chief executive must take a great deal of credit for establishing that post. We welcome it and we think it is good news.
We also have reason to believe that the creation of the post was a direct response to the recommendations both of the ombudsman and of the Select Committee, but whatever the reasons, we welcome it. It shows clearly that the agency is taking on board the recommendations that are made by the Select Committee and by the ombudsman.

Sir David Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the new system is to work properly, once individuals have complained they should not get letters and demands from another office in the agency? They would be furious about that, but one of the central problems of the CSA is that the left hand and the right hand do not know what the other is doing. When individuals' earnings change, the officer will order less to be paid in maintenance, but it takes too long to get the information across.

Mr. Pawsey: That is a valid point. I have sought to persuade the chief executive of the CSA to appoint a named official to deal with each person's case, so that there is a direct point of reference. Miss Chant believes that that cannot be done because of the complexity of the agency's operations and because of its geographical spread. However, I look forward to proposals that will further improve the work of the agency.
My third issue is that of redress. The Select Committee previously commented on the practice of the Department of Social Security and the CSA and the way in which redress is given to those who have been harmed by maladministration. That is an especial concern of the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency I cannot recall—

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Blyth Valley.

Mr. Pawsey: Thank you. The specific concern is about those who have been wrongly identified as the absent parent. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley has brought that point to the notice of the Select Committee on several occasions. I shall bring matters up to date. In the ombudsman's second report on the CSA, he included three further misidentification cases and added that he was still investigating a further three. Mr. Reid says, with an element of Scottish understatement:
I regard cases of this kind as being particularly serious and having the potential for ruining stable relationships.
I suspect that no one in the House will disagree with that.
In all fairness, I must stress that the number of such cases is limited. At the time of the Select Committee's first inquiry into the agency, we were told that, out of the 203,000 maintenance inquiry forms sent out between 1 April 1994 and 2 December 1994, 70 had gone to the wrong person. From 1 April 1995 to 31 January 1996, the number of identifications made in error, in which the CSA was at fault, amounted to 28 out of 170,000 cases. That is a welcome improvement and the agency undoubtedly deserves credit.
Both the Select Committee and the ombudsman believe, however, that, when misidentification has occurred, there must be a prima facie case for compensation. Clearly, the person wrongly identified has been the victim of a wrong and scandalous allegation. In the Select Committee's report last year, we recommended that financial compensation be paid to those who have been falsely identified as the absent parent.
The Select Committee was pleased that the Government have recently accepted the recommendation and, from 1 April this year, those wrongly identified as absent parents, through the fault of the agency, will receive a consolatory payment of £100. The House may feel that that is a small enough sum when compared to the magnitude of the false allegation.
The consolatory payment does not, however, preclude a request for more generous compensation for worry and distress. Nor will it stop the ombudsman recommending greater generosity should he deem it appropriate. I deeply regret the fact that consolatory payments, small as they are, are to be paid only from 1 April this year. Payments will not be retrospective. The Select Committee—most of its members are present in the Chamber—asks the Government to reconsider the principle of consolatory payments. If it is admitted that payment is due, it is surely entirely indefensible to withhold payment from those who suffered before April. The numbers are small and the amount of cash involved is small.
The Government have changed their policy on interest being paid on delayed payments. That is another change that must be welcomed. The Select Committee certainly applauds it. The ombudsman, in welcoming such changes, makes it clear that there should be a more fundamental reassessment within the DSS of its attitude to compensation and redress. A review is taking place and we look forward to a speedy and helpful conclusion.
We were disappointed by the Department's attitude to making payments for worry and distress caused by maladministration. The Department has always insisted that such payments will be made only where medical evidence can be produced. The Select Committee has always criticised that approach as being far too inflexible. There must surely be occasions—erroneous identification of an absent parent would be one—where the mere facts of the case present ample grounds for assuming exceptional worry and distress. I was pleased when Miss Chant suggested that the agency is moving towards that position.
The Select Committee believes that the Department should move away from its rigid insistence on a medical certificate to prove distress. The Select Committee asks for humane consideration. It will pursue with vigour those cases where it believes that compensation is being denied unreasonably.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even modest compensation, where the ombudsman finds in favour of the complainant and accepts that there has been maladministration, would be acceptable and more tangible than a report finding in favour of complaint, and that the agency should be required to make some compensation when a recommendation is made?

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I watched my hon. Friend the Minister noting carefully what the hon. Gentleman said. My hon. Friend may refer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention when he contributes to the debate. I have utmost sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's approach.
The Select Committee wishes to express appreciation to the ombudsman and his staff for their work in connection with the CSA. The members of the Committee welcome Miss Chant's assurance that the ombudsman's reports are disseminated throughout the agency and are used in the training of its staff. I hope that as a result the

failures that the ombudsman has identified in the past will be avoided in the future. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister and the chief executive of the agency for the work that they have done to improve the standards of the agency's work.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This is an extremely important subject and the debate will be far too short. We are debating a subject that has probably been a significant feature of most hon. Members' constituency mailbags, certainly for the past two years since the agency came into operation. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration took half an hour to introduce his topics, only an hour is left before the debate must be brought to an end. I hope that, in future, we can have at least three hours on these matters, especially when two Select Committees are involved in a major issue.
The Select Committee on Social Security has produced three reports on the Child Support Agency, the third quite recently. Two features have characterised the taking of evidence and the preparation of reports. First, there have been many principled objections to the CSA and its operations in general. Secondly, there have been some serious criticisms of its administrative ability and its lack of sensitivity in dealing with the individual cases of a large number of people.
The break-up of a partnership is a difficult and traumatic experience. When children are involved, it is difficult for both parents. It is also difficult for the child or children. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) wishes to talk about the difficulties that ensue.
The Social Security Committee's second report drew attention to the descriptions of parents—the "parent with care" and the "absent parent". The parent who is not living with the children who are a product of the partnership is, of course, absent, but that does not mean that he or she does not care for them, is not interested in them and does not want to have a long-term relationship with them. Indeed, the opposite is the case. I hope that the Minister will recognise that that is not a minor point of political correctness. Descriptions are important because much flows from them. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
Many of those who have objected to the CSA have done so on the ground that it collects money to meet targets set by the Secretary of State. It attempts to meet those targets. It has often gone for targets that are easy to deal with rather than the more difficult ones because that has been the way to meet short-term objectives. The amount of money collected and handed back to the Treasury is considerable, whereas the amount collected to benefit the children involved in break-ups is very much smaller.
There has been much discussion about the administrative procedures and principles that lie behind the CSA; little consideration has been given to what is happening to children, who have often gone through a traumatic experience, and who continue to do so. As the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, the inefficiencies and lack of sensitivity of the CSA in dealing with many cases have led to further problems for children and exacerbated an already difficult situation in relationships.
There are many who strongly supported the approach of a court order system for settlements of marital break-up and dispute. They did so because there would be an element of discretion. The court would have been able to consider the situation in the round, take a sensible view of things and apply orders accordingly. In its initial stages, the CSA had no discretion to enable it to operate any half-sensible policy. That resulted in many difficulties.
The Secretary of State sets collection targets. The Government's obsession with targeting is not necessarily helpful. It leads to a culture of grabbing the fastest return possible, which permeates the agency. Those who work in the agency should be considering the needs and happiness of children of partnerships that, unfortunately, have broken up. Perhaps they should consider the parties and the children involved in a more caring way than they do at present.
I shall be brief, because I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. It is important to say, however, that the Social Security Committee's role in these matters must be to try to reflect public opinion about the efficiency and administration of the CSA. The Committee must try to ensure that the public's opinions are taken up in debates—as we, its members, will try to do this morning.
Opposition to the Child Support Agency will not diminish or go away because of the high level of demand that it places on parents who are no longer in a partnership and who no longer live with their children—I do not want to use the title "absent parents" because many of them are not. They feel bitter and aggrieved at the way in which the CSA has treated them, and we must reflect that.
The main conclusion of the most recent report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration states:
It has not been our intention to investigate or question the policy decisions relating to the CSA. Recent changes introduced by the Government are an implicit acknowledgment that … not all such decisions were correct.
There have been enormous changes—112 have already been made. The report continues:
What is evident, however, both from a mass of circumstantial evidence and from the Ombudsman's report, is that any policy deficiency was cruelly exacerbated by administrative incompetence. Despite the recent experience of the DLA, basic measures to improve the handling of correspondence and complaints, the training of staff, replying to MPs, dealing with backlogs of work, were all delayed far too long. We trust that any review arising from the experience at the CSA will take much more seriously the need to learn permanent lessons about how to administer any major new project.
Serious questions must be asked about an agency that was rushed in in such a way, which has resulted in massive public criticism and huge mailbags for Members of Parliament.
Initially, the CSA was not able to deal even with the criticisms of Members of Parliament. I am not asking for privileges for Members of Parliament—I do not think that anyone is asking that—but if a constituent cannot get anything done by a Government Department or Government agency, they properly go to their Member of Parliament, who rightly demands a rapid response and rapid treatment. What credibility do Members of

Parliament or this place have if they, too, cannot get an answer from a Government Department? That matter must be considered thoroughly.
In 1994–95, only 44 per cent. of all assessments were accurate. I know that claims have been made of an improvement in accuracy, but only 44 per cent.—less than half—is a dismal performance by any stretch of the imagination. There has also been a failure to meet assessment targets, so arrears of payment have built up, which is a serious matter.
In 1995, unpaid maintenance reached a total of £701 million, which is a serious figure. I recall dealing with cases in which the failure to pay maintenance to the family or the caring parent with the child meant that they had to go back to the Department of Social Security to try to secure a crisis loan to get through a process that should have been resolved in the first place. That is bureaucratic inefficiency gone mad, and must be examined.
From the evidence that the Select Committee took, there were suggestions that self-employed people were treated much less rigorously than employed people, and that self-employed people could deflate their income by transferring legitimate personal expenditure to business expenditure, thus falsely lowering their income and the amount that they were liable to pay. That is easy to do and must be examined much more assiduously.
There are concerns about poor customer service, which we have referred to in our report. There are also extreme concerns about the poor quality of information and its comprehensibility.
We must consider other concerns. The level of assessment that is being made by the Child Support Agency often means that the parent who is no longer in direct care of the children—who is described as the absent parent in all the reports—is often left with insufficient money on which to survive. I think that, in our advice surgeries, we have all met people whose partnership has broken up, who are no longer in direct day-to-day charge of the children, but who want to have a good relationship with them.
Women and men have visited my surgery who are no longer in a direct day-to-day relationship and who have been told to pay such a huge amount of money to the CSA that they can barely live themselves, never mind find the fare to visit the children, buy presents for them or take them on holiday, which are all important for a proper caring relationship between parents and their children. The complete lack of discretion in the CSA formula has led to many of the problems.
Likewise, where parents on income support are in care of the children, the lack of a sufficient maintenance disregard means that they are no better off. The state is benefiting because it is taking money from the so-called absent parent, but the money is not going through to the parent to pass on to the children. There should be a sufficient maintenance disregard. The Select Committee has discussed that in previous reports.
The CSA has been targeting cases that are the easiest to deal with. More complex cases, where threats of violence are involved and where a parent feels extreme fear, seem to be shoved to one side as too difficult to deal with—and because the CSA must deal with the targets that the Government are always pushing it to meet as rapidly as possible.
The other general point is that, sometimes, on the break-up of a partnership, informal arrangements between the parents have been effective. Both parents are satisfied with the arrangements. The children are happy with them. They see that their estranged parents at least have a relaxed relationship. I have come across cases where such a satisfactory arrangement has been made, where a sum of money has been paid to the parent who is looking after the children and where, informally, the other parent is spending much more money on the children—presents, holidays and trips—as part of the relationship. The CSA, however, comes along and demands a doubling or trebling of the amount being paid, so the other parent has no money left to develop a normal relationship. There is a complete lack of flexibility in the arrangement.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: In the case that the hon. Gentleman has cited, the Child Support Agency would not be involved. Where a mother and father agree on the maintenance that should be paid and the taxpayer is not involved by paying benefit, that is an arrangement between them and there is no need for the agency to become involved.

Mr. Corbyn: I appreciate that, but where one of the parents is on benefit, the CSA does become involved. I was referring to that situation. I hope that the Minister understood my point.

Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again but, in that situation, it must be right and proper for the CSA to hold the ring—that is what Parliament decided when the Child Support Act 1991 was passed—between the mother, the father and the taxpayer. It is wrong that the taxpayer should have to pay unnecessarily. Taxpayers often bring up children of their own on low incomes. We must have an eye to that in deciding the fair maintenance level that should be paid.

Mr. Corbyn: It is all very well for the Minister to say that, but there are two problems. First, the child is not any better off as a result of money being taken from the other parent—necessarily if the family is on benefit. Secondly, the Minister will be aware of the disruption that can be caused to other arrangements and other relationships, which is a serious consideration. There must be much greater flexibility.
The Social Security Committee has considered and visited Child Support Agency offices and centres. We remain concerned about the service's efficiency. The agency's apparent achievement of targets in 1995–96 is astounding. For example, the target of 90 per cent. of payments to be made to the parent with care within 10 working days of receipt from the absent parent has apparently been overshot by 7 percentage points—it is 97 per cent. I should like to know the basis on which that information was collected because, knowing just the cases that I deal with, I have some serious questions about it. I am sure that other hon. Members are in the same position. A little more detail, therefore, on how the scores have been achieved would be extremely welcome.

Mr. Michael Lord: I want to make just two points, but before making either of them, may I say how sad it is that we must have a Child Support Agency in the first place. It is a sad comment on the state of our country. Whatever financial arrangements are made for children

when marriages or partnerships—as they are now sometimes called—break up, the children are almost always deeply damaged. We fool ourselves, as a House and as a nation, if we think that by making proper financial provision for them—at whatever level—we can compensate for the damage that has been done. We should not think that money, new arrangements and what is sometimes called quality time with children can put things right.
My first point relates to whether legislation passed by the House does what the House expects it to do. When we debated the Bill that became the Child Support Act 1991, we all thought that its purpose was to chase errant parents who were contributing nothing to their children's welfare; but once the Act was in operation, the priority seemed to be increasing existing payments, about which we already knew, because they were the easier targets. Meanwhile, the errant parents got away with it because it was harder to catch up with them.
The figures suggest that we are now getting those people into the net, and that they are contributing to their children's upbringing. Nevertheless, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not just to increase the payments of absent parents to a reasonable level—it should not be an unreasonable level, as hon. Members have pointed out—but, despite the complications, to pursue even more vigorously parents who are paying nothing. That, after all, was the driving force behind the Act.
Secondly, as a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, I must say that I am appalled that we could introduce a Bill that would have such far-reaching consequences, and affect so many people in relation to such sensitive issues, without having the faintest idea how we would cope once it was in operation. Our Select Committee has seen example after example of grotesque incompetence—and nothing is worse than the fact that, the day before the button was pressed to launch the system, it must have been clear to those involved that it simply would not work. On one occasion, in the Select Committee, I compared it to the charge of the Light Brigade. The idea that the administrative system could deal with the volume of problems and the deluge of correspondence was clearly nonsense, and it should have been recognised as such long before the legislation was initiated.
Every hon. Member can cite individual cases. I encountered a happily married man who was suddenly told that he would have to start paying for an eight-year-old son who did not exist. Despite his protestations—his letters telling the agency that it had the wrong initials and the wrong details, and my letters trying to put the matter right—the case dragged on for months, doing huge damage to the man and his family, until, finally, the agency admitted that it was wrong and relieved the family of their distress. There has been much talk of compensation this morning, and I agree with what has been said, but I think that all that my constituent and his wife want is to be left in peace. They wish that they had never been assaulted by the Child Support Agency in the first place.

Mr. Michael Connarty: As a fellow member of the Select Committee, the hon. Gentleman will remember that that happened twice to a constituent of mine. Although he was assured that his experience would not be repeated, in the following year the same claim was made against my constituent in relation to a child whom


he had not fathered. It turned out that the actual father lived 300 miles away. Should not the victims of such errors—especially double errors of that kind—be allowed compensation, even if their cases date from before April 1996?

Mr. Lord: I entirely agree, but my point is that there are some things that money cannot put right. Those responsible should bear that in mind, and think carefully before they act.
I believe that the system operated by the CSA is fundamentally wrong. It has now introduced an arrangement known as "total functionalisation". The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) will know that one of my big beefs in the Select Committee is about communication, and the way in which we get things wrong through the use of jargon. "Total functionalisation"—two words that no one can understand—is a prime example. I understand that it means that, when an organisation such as the CSA is being set up from scratch and there are misgivings about how it will work, instead of one member of staff being responsible for a particular client there is something resembling a car production line: different people have different inputs at different stages, whether the case relates to birth certificates, national insurance numbers or whatever.
If one person does not have individual responsibility, it is not surprising that there are problems. It may not be possible to remedy the situation in the short term—I acknowledge that there are huge pressures on the CSA—but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to think seriously about changing the system fundamentally, so that individual members of staff can have individual responsibility for individual cases and see those cases through. We should know who is responsible for a case, our constituents should know and, most important, the member of staff concerned should know that the buck stops with him or her.
The Select Committee constantly emphasises that, although there is a good deal of point in dealing with complaints as we do, if, when the Parliamentary Commissioner makes his reports, we do not learn from all the damage and distress that our constituents have experienced—if we do not put things right so that we do not keep receiving complaints—we shall have missed a golden opportunity.

Ms Liz Lynne: I realise that we have very little time, so I shall try to be as brief as possible.
We are debating some important reports, and I think that it would be wrong not to mention the report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as well. It stated that lone mothers and children had obtained no net financial gain from the Child Support Agency and that there was no evidence that lone mothers were getting back into work, or being encouraged to do so. It also stated that emotional harm was being done to children. We know that that is true from what we are told by constituents in our surgeries; I know from a man who was sitting in my surgery in floods of tears.
The man in question had had a reasonable relationship with his ex-wife and an excellent relationship with his son, who lived some distance away. He used to visit his son

regularly, take presents, and make masses of telephone calls. As soon as the Child Support Agency became involved, his ex-wife used it as a stick to beat him with. She started to say to his son, "Your father does not love you any more. He is not giving you presents; he is not coming to see you as much." The man—who was a tough man—sat in my surgery in floods of tears. He had just received a telephone call from his son, who had told him, "I don't want to see you any more. I don't love you any more," and then put down the receiver. That is the emotional harm. That is the cost of the CSA in human terms.
In his report, the Parliamentary Commissioner says that the same mistakes are being made as were being made at the time of his last report. There are cases of mistaken identity, inadequate procedures, delays and confusion, but now new faults have been identified, such as breaches of confidentiality. At long last, the Minister is to appoint an independent complaints examiner. I welcome that, but let us consider mistaken identity.
Is £100 any compensation for what might happen to a family when a letter accusing a man of fathering a child arrives on the doormat? Of course he will discuss the matter with his wife, but the untold damage that results from wrongly accusing a man of fathering a child—perhaps during the course of his relationship with his wife—cannot be compensated by £100. Those mistakes should not be occurring.
The DSS says that the CSA is getting better, but it still has a dismal record. In April 1995, 50 per cent. of cases were being cleared within 26 weeks. I gather that provisional figures show that, by the end of March, the rate was 48 per cent.—down, even, on April 1995.
In response to a parliamentary question about confidential information, I was told that, up to 31 October 1995, eight staff had been dismissed and that 10 had been disciplined. The CSA has a worse record than any other agency in the Department of Social Security.
What about telephone calls? A letter arrives—again—from the CSA, panic sets in because someone is being asked for more money than they can afford, and they try to make a telephone call to the CSA. In about 50 per cent. of cases, they do not get through—they either give up trying or calls are not answered. That cannot be right when people are supposed to try to have their queries answered as quickly as possible.
On the Social Security Committee report—

Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Lynne: I have very little time, I am afraid.
The Select Committee used as a source the answer to one of my parliamentary questions. The answer to that question revealed that, of the 46,000 full assessments between April and August 1995, 20,700—45per cent. of the total—were for £2.35 or less. That really is small beer when we consider what the CSA was supposed to accomplish.
In evidence to the Select Committee, the Child Poverty Action Group spoke of the review backlog—it was one of the main aspects of its evidence. That problem has to be dealt with.
As for the computer system, why on earth was a system that was based on a Florida system—and used in a collection agency—chosen in the first place? The hon.


Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) drew that matter to the attention of the Select Committee. The Department of Social Security must have realised, in view of the work that the CSA would have to do, that it was simply not adequate—and it was brought in far too quickly. I gather that the same company is being used by the Inland Revenue, and that that system, too, will be brought in far too quickly. If there have been problems with the CSA's system, imagine the problems that the Inland Revenue will have using it for self-assessment. The system is just not up to the job.
I do not believe that there is any evidence that the CSA is improving the lot of the parent with care. It is certainly not improving the lot of the liable parent, and it is damaging children. First and foremost, children should come first—as the Child Support Act 1991 stated.
The CSA is causing untold human misery, and it is less effective than the old liable relatives unit—although that operated in a pretty crazy way and certainly did not collect the maintenance that it should have done. The CSA is even worse than the liable relatives unit. It is a total, unmitigated failure, and it should be scrapped. A fair unified family court system should be introduced so that every case can be assessed individually. Children might then come first.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I was struck by the coincidence that the House is this morning discussing child support and, this afternoon, the Family Law Bill. In broader terms, the timing is not a coincidence because Governments and Parliaments, not only in Europe but worldwide, have to grapple with the very difficult issues of family formation and family dissolution, and particularly with the issue of divorce. I was struck by those links.
I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State has had any talks with the Lord Chancellor's Department about the relationship between child maintenance processes and the new divorce procedures—not least for mediation—that are being proposed in the Family Law Bill. I know that the issues are complex and that they differ from one another in many respects, but if this Parliament is to discuss and perhaps adopt a new process of mediation for divorce cases, the issue of child maintenance will not be irrelevant to those proceedings. I should like to feel that the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of Social Security are at least in talks, and that any interface has been explored by the Government.
Much has been said—not only in this debate—about the sorry history of the Child Support Agency. I listened with great interest to the way in which the debate was introduced by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). I also listened to the other speeches with great care.
We do not need to rehearse the arguments about the CSA because we all know that it has, in many respects, been an administrative failure on a very large scale. My concern is that we are in danger of missing a great opportunity of getting this policy right. One way or another, we have to establish—not only in principle but in practice—the fact that both parents have a financial responsibility for their children. If we fail to bring about, in some respects, a cultural change so that it is widely accepted that both parents have a financial responsibility

for their children's maintenance—almost whatever the circumstances, although there will always be some exceptions—it will remain a recipe for new forms of family and child poverty, growing social disadvantage and new forms of social and economic inequality.
My anger about the CSA debacle is that it may have eroded public confidence in the Government's ability to introduce decent proposals for child maintenance. We need to rescue the policy. It started off in public debate as a recognition that fathers who had never paid a penny in support should be traced and made to face up to their responsibilities, but it has now led to a grave undermining of public confidence. There is much work to be done.
The Minister will no doubt talk about the Government's indicators and he will point to improvements. I recognise that there have been improvements, but I also recognise that we are starting from a very dire base. The word "dire" was, in fact, used by the Select Committee on Social Security to describe the history of the policy's first 18 months.
The agency's targets, such as procedures taking no more than 26 weeks, are fairly modest. If we were dealt with in 26 weeks by our bank or some other crucial institution in relation to our personal affairs, we would not be overly impressed.
I also argue that the targets do not include all the right objectives, and that other indicators are more important. At the broadest level, it is crucial for social policy and family law to enable more parents, whatever their situation, to be responsible for bringing up their children. One of the saddest statistics that I have seen in recent years was from the York survey—commissioned by the Department of Social Security a few years ago—which showed that, in 43 per cent. of one-parent families, there was no contact between the child and the so-called absent parent, who was usually the father. That is an extraordinarily sad statistic. We need to encourage in various ways—in very difficult demographic circumstances—both parents to have a responsibility. That responsibility includes financial maintenance, but it is hardly the only issue.
As mentioned earlier in the debate, one of the crucial indicators will be how the policy impacts on children's material circumstances and on the issue of child poverty. One of the reasons why we have consistently argued for a disregard is that we feel that people on income support should receive some net benefit and net income increase from what is, after all, meant to be a child support policy rather than a policy to support the Exchequer. Will the Minister tell the House what proportion of parents with care have a net benefit and net income increase from child support policy as the strategy is now operated?
Another important indicator is whether the child support policy can be made to ensure that more parents with care who are currently out of work can return to the labour market should they wish to do so. We need to examine the strategy in those circumstances, too. I am concerned that many parents with care who are in work and receiving family credit can find that, because of a rule that many of us regard as beneficial in general—the rule that states that family credit is reassessed only after six months—they are worse off when child maintenance stops. Will the Minister share his thoughts on that with the House? Can we improve the situation so that mothers who are doing their best to be independent, albeit with


support from the state, are not penalised when child maintenance suddenly dries up and family credit appears to be pretty inflexible?
I am also concerned that there are still a large number of cases in which, sometimes literally, fathers have never paid a penny or a pound, but are still getting away with not doing so. I am impressed by the fact that, alongside cases of fathers complaining about the inequities of the CSA and how it affects them, I am receiving more correspondence from mothers—or the parents with care—saying that they thought that Parliament had passed an Act for them, that they have given the CSA all the details but that, two or three years later, the guy is still getting away with it. Often, those people have children from more than one relationship. How is Government policy working out in that instance?
The Select Committee had something to say about collusion and the "good cause" for the parent with care not to give information to the CSA. We are concerned to tackle the problem of collusion. We recognise that it exists and that it has to be targeted as part of a more comprehensive anti-fraud strategy, but the safety and welfare of the mother who is genuinely worried about violence and who may have been the victim of domestic violence is still absolutely paramount when it comes to trying to get a difficult policy right in practice.
The Select Committee also made some interesting noises about whether the Inland Revenue might be the best agency to collect child support. We are interested in what proposals the Committee will come up with and we are very open-minded about it. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's view at this stage.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I am grateful to the Chairmen of the two Select Committees for providing us with an opportunity to discuss the Child Support Agency's work. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, for his generous personal remarks and for what I thought was a balanced presentation of his Committee's work in respect of the CSA. I reiterate what the chief executive of the agency said in giving evidence to that Committee. She said that the agency was truly sorry for the enormous work load that it had imposed on the ombudsman and that it was determined to make considerable advances, to ensure that the work load in the future was dramatically reduced.
My remarks will be brief as I do not wish to detain the House for long. This is an opportunity for my colleagues and me to listen to the comments of the members of the two Committees, and I have certainly done just that. I shall respond in writing to any comments that they may have made which I cannot respond to now.
There is no doubt that the context of our debate on the CSA has changed, despite the views of the Liberal Democrats. Its targets, which were referred to rather dismissively by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), concern not only collection and arrangement but a range of the agency's other activities. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are other aspects

that we should try to target in terms of service standards, I hope that he will tell us, because we would certainly consider his views.
The funding arranged for children and for mothers, principally, over the past year has increased dramatically. It is not money for the Treasury, as the hon. Member for Islington, North suggested. In fact, 75 per cent. of the £301.5 million maintenance paid by absent parents has gone to parents with care, and 25 per cent. has been retained by the Secretary of State, but that, of course, is to offset social security benefits that have been paid for their children by the taxpayer. That is a remarkable improvement. In the last month alone, the agency collected more money than in the whole of its first year of operation. That reveals how dire the performance was in the early days, but it also shows how far the agency has come.
Accuracy has been mentioned. Accuracy to within 1p, which is the measure that we use, has increased from 50 per cent. to 79 per cent., exceeding the target of 75 per cent. Accuracy is a matter of great concern to both Select Committees, and I pay tribute to the agency for that dramatic increase. We have set the agency a harsh target for next year, and I am determined that it shall meet it.
Mention was made of the speed with which money is passed to the parent with care. The hon. Member for Islington, North said that he found the figure of 97 per cent. suspicious. The figure is all the more remarkable, in that the remaining 3 per cent. covers bouncing cheques and so on. That shows that the agency is getting the money through quickly, which I know has been a matter of great concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk (Mr. Lord) hit the nail on the head when he explained the circumstances in which the CSA operates. In relation to the CSA's performance and whether it aims at soft targets, I can say that about 77 per cent. of all clients of the agency were getting nothing at all when they first approached the agency. Therefore, it is not a case of the agency aiming at easy targets.
The agency has traced 133,000 absent parents and now traces about 1,000 a week. They are people who are trying to get away without meeting their commitments. The agency's performance in that respect has also improved significantly.
Of course, the CSA undertakes not only a child support assessment operation but enforcement, which has also been mentioned today. One thousand deduction from earnings orders are imposed each week, and there has been a massive increase in the number of liability orders that have been sought and obtained in the past year. The CSA will shortly be able to register debt on the register of county court judgments which, in other instances, have proved to be an effective way of ensuring that the self-employed meet their obligations.
As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth made a very balanced speech from the point of view of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. We shall shortly hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), the deputy Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security. The Chairman has an unbreakable appointment and is not able to be with us, but my hon. Friend will fill his shoes admirably.
The Government have replied to the report published by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and we greatly welcome that issued by the Social Security Select Committee. Its robust approach to and support for the principles of our child support policies are greatly welcomed. I also welcome the comments made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), and agree with all of them except for that in relation to the disregard.
The agency is unique among Government operations in that it needs to balance the interests of a number of parties, including the mother, father and taxpayer, in every case that it handles. The process is inevitably complex and therefore at risk of error or deliberate obstruction. There is therefore the potential for any part of the processes involved to break down, and there is more likelihood that one or other of the parents in any case will complain. A good result for the parent with care may well be a bad result for an absent parent, or vice versa.
The changes that the Government introduced in—

Mr. Connarty: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I apologise for not giving way, but time is short. I must make progress.
The changes that the Government introduced in 1995 addressed the main areas of concern. They were introduced to avoid undue hardship for the parents involved and to enable the CSA to operate more effectively. Some of the changes resulted from the considered and helpful Select Committee reports.
We introduced a cap on maintenance assessments, which restricts the amount that an absent parent can be assessed as having to pay to a maximum of 30 per cent. of his net income. I urge the House to judge some of the lurid hardship stories that we read about in that context.
There is now also an allowance in the formula for travel-to-work costs and provision to recognise existing property and capital settlements. Future changes, which are currently being piloted, will allow for a departure from the formula assessment in prescribed circumstances. We also plan to introduce a child maintenance bonus, which will provide a lump sum payment for parents with care moving off benefit into work, which will be introduced in April 1997.
In addition, we have introduced changes to improve the agency's administration, including some simplifications in the assessment of housing costs and earnings, and changes in the review procedures. The agency has introduced measures to improve the accuracy of its assessments through enhanced training and better targeted quality checks. It is making better use of local office staff, by extending the availability of the child support computer system to local offices. Those changes have led to the significant improvement in accuracy that I mentioned earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth referred to the CSA's functional approach to inquiries. What in CSA jargon is called the CAST—complete action service team—system, which means that cases will be handled virtually totally on one desk, will be introduced in the coming year and result in a much more user-friendly service being available to the agency's clients.
Those and other changes to the policies have been introduced speedily and efficiently by the agency, which has been acknowledged by the Select Committees on Social Security and on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in recent reports.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mitchell: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I shall not. I want to make a number of other points.
As I announced recently, an independent complaints examiner will be appointed later this year, which is in response to the ombudsman's suggestion in his report. I also recently announced improvements that we are introducing to the CSA's compensation scheme. Parents with care will now receive interest payments on any maintenance that is collected by the agency but not passed on quickly. In addition, we have reduced from three months to one month the period after which compensation will be considered for "culpable delay". A new type of conciliatory payment has been introduced for cases where a maintenance inquiry form is sent to the wrong person.
The Social Security Committee is critical of the fact that some
violent or threatening absent parents are rewarded for their unacceptable behaviour by being exempt from paying maintenance".
We share that concern. The extent of the problem has been highlighted by the report, "Good Cause", which we recently published. Its findings suggest that there is a high level of collusion among some parents with care and absent parents who use the alleged threat of harm and undue distress to avoid being assessed by the agency.
We have therefore made a number of recommendations to address those findings. In particular, we are considering doubling the amount of the reduced benefit direction. That penalty is imposed when the parent refuses to co-operate with the agency for no good reason. We are also proposing that the penalty should remain in force for as long as the relevant child qualifies for child support maintenance, rather than for 18 months as at present.
The Social Security Committee has said that it is considering a radical simplification of the formula method of assessment. The less complex the formula, the greater the level of rough justice. I should tell the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West that in Australia and New Zealand, where there is a simpler method of assessment, pressure groups claim that the approach is less fair than those in use elsewhere.
Last year there was major change in primary legislation. There have been many further administrative and legislative changes in the agency. The aim is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its work, and the figures that I was able to announce to the House yesterday demonstrate that a significant start has been made. The agency is getting maintenance through for children. Above all, it is increasingly doing what is absolutely key to its work—providing for fair maintenance levels.
There will still be difficulties. Both Select Committees are at pains to point out that the agency touches on the most difficult and sensitive aspects of many people's lives. There are still far too many complaints about its work, but the nature of them is changing. As the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West said, the balance of complaints often comes from women who know that they can receive the


maintenance to which they are entitled because of examples of payments among their friends and neighbours. They write to the agency to ensure that they get what they deserve.
It is also true that, by and large, complaints from fathers are about the imposition of a deduction from earnings order. That is the nature of the vast majority of complaints that I receive from absent parents. It is right, however, and in the interests of children that a deduction from earnings order should be imposed, and we do so only when it is impossible to secure payments by any other means.
The Government are committed to doing whatever is necessary to continue the recent steep improvement in the CSA's work, and to ensure that it delivers the service that Parliament originally set for it, and which its clients have a right to expect.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for creating the new position of deputy Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security and for appointing me to it. Doubtless I shall recover eventually.

Mr. Corbyn: I doubt it.

Mr. Hughes: I have been told that I shall not recover from it, and I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for saying so.
Debates on the CSA are too often more historical than contemporary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, said. That is in essence the apparent difference between the reports of the two Select Committees.
I do not want to put it too strongly, but I am impelled to question how seriously we should take the comments of the Parliamentary Commissioner, who does not have targets to meet on the time taken to consider cases, on how long the CSA takes to consider cases—

Mr. Connarty: That is not true.

Mr. Hughes: He takes rather longer than the CSA. I welcome what my hon. Friends the Chairman and the Minister said about the improvements in meeting those targets.

Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not, because I have very little time.
The Social Security Committee's recent report marks quite a change. It says:
The Agency has shown that it is able to implement significant changes … quickly and efficiently … the Government should be confident that the Agency will be able to efficiently implement further changes".

It is important that people recognise that and that the CSA is here to stay. It will need to change and to continue to evolve. I echo the praise of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth for the changes that have been made by my hon. Friend the Minister and by the chief executive, Ann Chant, who has transformed the way in which the agency works.
Managers and staff at the agency have worked extremely hard and effectively in dealing with a backlog, a raft of substantial changes and abuse from people who do not like either the way in which they have been treated or—very often—the decisions that have been made. We should consider two things. First is the effect of our words on the staff. They need to understand that we recognise that improvements have been made. Of course there are problems, but we recognise that they have worked hard and made improvements.
Secondly, we need to recognise the effect on CSA customers. A rather rose-tinted view of absent parents has run through the debate. Yet many such people are absent. They connive and lie to exempt themselves from paying for the upkeep of their own children and simply think that the taxpayer should pick up the tab. Of course, many have been the victims of bad administration, but many others deserve—and will receive—the full weight and pressure of the CSA.
I should like to comment on the report "Good Cause", to which my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) referred. The Social Security Committee's recent report recommended that a review of the practice and procedure in this area should be undertaken by the agency, and that its findings should be made known and acted on. We wanted a simplified complaints procedure.
My hon. Friend the Minister has broken new ground. He has set an admirable precedent in asking the Select Committee to consider a number of issues such as the level of benefit deductions made because of non-co-operation, the duration and circumstances of those deductions, whether the cooling-off period should be abolished, whether benefit should be dependent on co-operation, and how procedures can best be applied to guard against collusion. This afternoon, we shall consider when and how we shall respond.
I agreed entirely with what the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West said about the protection of the woman who has been threatened with violence. However, apple pie is not policy and that is all that he gave us today.
Plainly, our Committee, like the other Select Committee, will return to the subject many times. However, we must accept that when changes are made, those very improvements and administrative successes will be used by people to criticise the work of the CSA. If one does not want to pay, an effective CSA is worse than an ineffective CSA.
There are three messages. We welcome the massive improvements, we look for more effective administration and better handling of customers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

Housing (Sheffield)

Mr. Clive Betts: I put on record what may be a technical interest, in that, whenever I refer to the need for additional resources for Sheffield city council, I am arguing not for resources for the organisation itself, but for resources that may be spent to the benefit of my constituents.
I am pleased to be able to raise this issue today. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I spent 16 years on Sheffield city council, nine years of which were spent on the housing committee—of which I was chair for six years. I intend to address several matters. First, there is the requirement for new house building in Sheffield, which was set out by the city council in its strategy statement. More than 5,000 new homes are required by the turn of the century and it is estimated that about half those new homes should be provided in the rented sector at affordable rents because not all individuals can afford to buy their homes, whatever their aspirations may be.
There is a need for more money to be spent on improvements and repairs in older private sector housing. Again, the council strategy statement says that, on the latest estimate, 9,000 homes in the private sector in Sheffield are unfit. Some 900 people are on the waiting list for improvement grants.
In the council sector, there is a need for expenditure on repairs and improvements. There is a need to modernise all our inter-war property and a need for major refurbishment work on tower blocks. I do not have such tower blocks in my constituency, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), who is sitting beside me, has a number of tower blocks in need of refurbishment.
Work is needed on deck access blocks, although Sheffield has already done a lot of work on them. I think especially of the partial demolition and partial renovation of the Hyde Park scheme to which the then Minister, David Trippier, gave special approval as part of the package of facilities provided for the world student games. That was one housing benefit that came out of that event.
Work is also needed on basic improvements, such as the installation of central heating. The difficulty is that the city's housing investment programme of £30 million is totally inadequate to deal with that range of problems within a reasonable time scale.
We have in this case a local authority with an excellent track record of identifying and using all kinds of capital resources. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it has used all its housing investment programme and it has used other programmes such as the urban programme. It has frequently been given additional resources because it has been able to spend its money up to the limit and in a proper way.
The authority used prescribed receipts in the 1980s up to the maximum possible and it therefore developed very good planned maintenance programmes. In the 1980s, it installed almost 30,000 central heating schemes in local authority homes through a leasing arrangement. It developed a housing partnership scheme with local builders and housing associations which built more than 1,500 homes to rent. It used original techniques, such as the enveloping scheme which benefited 2,000 homes in

the private sector, which was followed by the use of the block grant scheme. That benefited 250 households in the private sector.
During the 1980s, perhaps in contrast with what was happening in some parts of the country and despite Government policy, Sheffield city council boosted its housing investment programme from about £20 million to about £100 million. That was a substantial increase to the benefit of local people. That was where much of Sheffield's expansion of capital development went.
Sheffield also pioneered many innovative measures in housing management. The area-based management scheme was introduced to devolve and decentralise arrangements, and area offices were built so that people could have access to housing services at a local level. A major consultation programme was introduced to ensure that tenants participated in the decisions being taken about their homes.
Tenants' associations were formally recognised, and a tenants' levy scheme—the only one of its kind still operating in this country—was introduced whereby, through their rents, tenants could pay a levy that was passed on to recognised local tenants' associations so that they could have a full and active involvement in what happened in their locality.
An official repairs scheme was introduced. It is interesting that, when I became a councillor in 1976, the majority of complaints in my surgery were about repairs. Now they are about the fact that people cannot get a home at all, and few complaints are about the repairs system operating in the city.
The problem is one of reduced resources; that is the key issue in this debate. Housing investment programme allocations were cut progressively throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s. At the same time, investment for housing associations and the housing action grant were reduced.
The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 meant that local authorities could no longer use non-prescribed receipts for planned maintenance schemes. That was a devastating blow because planned maintenance schemes were an efficient use of resources. Roofs were replaced, homes were rewired and windows were replaced. Maintaining the basic fabric of properties eventually saved money because less money had to be spent on responsive repairs.
The council embarked on a partnership scheme; again, that was an original idea and the scheme was the only one of its kind in the country. Some 1,500 new homes were built, but what did the Government do? They introduced specific legislation to stop such schemes. I remember sitting in a room in Sheffield town hall and signing the agreement for the scheme at 11.30 pm as the new legislation, which would stop such schemes, was coming into effect at midnight.
The council introduced a leasing scheme for central heating whereby tenants paid a rent increase to cover the cost. That was stopped as part of the Government's clamp-down on local authorities' right to borrow in various ways to improve their housing stock. It is nonsense that people who buy their council house can go to a gas company and can borrow money to have central heating put in from the financial institutions that were doing deals with Sheffield city council to put central heating in council houses through a leasing scheme.


One is good; the other, apparently, is bad. If it is investment in the private sector involving borrowing from private institutions, it is good. If the public sector borrows from the same private institutions and tenants pay a rent increase to cover the cost, apparently that is bad and should be stopped. That was nonsense, but it stopped a worthwhile programme in its tracks.
Nationally, the Government have cut housing investment by almost half since 1992. The figures I have given show that, since 1990, Sheffield's investment programme has been cut from £100 million to £30 million. That is the scale of the reduction. The problems have not lessened, but the resources to tackle them have.
The Government's belief that, if they stopped local authority building, the resources would go elsewhere was not true. The number of private homes started in Sheffield was about 800 a year throughout the 1980s. The figure has not risen since 1980. In the 1980s, housing associations developed about 400 homes a year; the figure was lower at the beginning of the 1980s, but similar to the figure for the end of the 1970s. It is simply a fact that local authority building has come to a complete standstill, whereas during the 1970s, Sheffield built more than 1,000 homes a year. As late as 1980, it built 1,200 homes.
I now turn to the problems in my constituency which reflect those across the city in many respects. There is a diversity of needs. We need new homes. We have an innovative project called the Attercliffe village project. Local housing associations, the local authority, local builders and the local community are working together and we have the prospect of building new homes.
The difficulty is that there is no housing action grant to support the housing association scheme, although it is hoped that English Partnerships may help. The project is brown-field development on contaminated land. It can be cleaned up, but there is a price because housing there is more expensive. However, it is housing relatively near the city centre which local people want. If we could develop a scheme that also involved local people training to build those homes, so that we could do something about the high unemployment in the Darnall area, that would be a bonus. We shall work hard at that, but so far we have not had the necessary Government support.
In another part of my constituency, which is nearly out in the countryside, what almost amounts to a new town is being built in the Mosborough area. My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley, who was chair of the planning committee, will remember the initial aspirations to build a balanced community there, with public and private sector housing. Of course that balance has gone, because only the private housing is being built. It is a shame that some green fields are being built on, when we ought to concentrate our investment on the brown-field sites—the disused industrial sites nearer the city centre. Again the balance is wrong, and we need to sort it out.
Many people who have moved to private housing in the Mosborough area say that they want their elderly parents to come and join them there—but where is the council housing and the housing association property for them to move to? All too often, it does not exist.
There is enormous demand in the council sector. There are 13,000 people wanting immediate housing on the waiting list in Sheffield, and there are now nearly 10 times

as many homelessness acceptances as there were in 1979. The right to buy has had a disproportionate effect on the number of rented properties in my constituency. In parts of my area, we have had the highest percentage use of right to buy in the city, and for some sorts of property there is a ten-year waiting list.
When one talks to housing officers in Sheffield, it is interesting to find out that although there is a great demand for some property, at the other end of the scale properties are becoming almost unlettable. People's aspirations have increased, and they also know that if they get into an unmodernised property without central heating, they will have little chance of getting a transfer out in the foreseeable future. With the current resources available, there is also little chance that the house will be modernised,
So people say, "We'll wait a bit; we'll wait for a modernised property." In this day and age, who wants to move into a home without central heating? There are still 15,000 such homes in Sheffield, and that is not acceptable in this country, as we move into the new century.

Mr. Bill Michie: There is a logjam in all housing authorities nowadays. Because of the lack of investment, many families and single people are in the wrong properties. We are not building new housing, which would give them a choice, so we are left with people in three-bedroomed houses who could do with only two bedrooms. Unless we get some new build, that anomaly will remain for years to come.

Mr. Betts: My hon. Friend is right; in certain parts of the city there are shortages of larger properties for larger families, of properties for disabled people and elderly people, and of various other sorts of specialist housing.
All the time there is the feeling that the clamp-down on local authority housing resources is worsening the quality of the housing stock. The Government's policy of always talking down council housing and local authorities leads to such property being stigmatised and treated as a form of "welfare housing", rather than as an alternative form of tenure.
In my constituency there are estates of good quality houses built to Bevan standards in the 1950s, such as Ballifield, Thornbridge and Base Green. Although the houses are basically good, they need investment in improvements such as central heating. After 40 years, the metal windows in the houses in the Hackenthorpe estate are rotting and decaying, and they need replacing. People deserve better than that.
A delegation came to me from the flats in Richmond road. The old-age pensioners there look at the condensation running down their windows and the rotting frames, and know that there is no money to replace them. That is not acceptable. In the 1980s we used non-proscribed receipts for planned maintenance schemes to rectify such problems.
The city council has been imaginative. It has put in for Government schemes such as estate action and single regeneration budgets, and has been successful. We are not pushing Government schemes, or any other help that is offered, to one side; we simply say that that help is not sufficient.
In the private sector we have a major renewal project in the Darnall area. Did I say a major renewal project? In fact we are renewing only 40 homes a year. At that rate


it would take more than 10 years to do all those houses, and that is not acceptable, considering that many of them are unfit. Alongside them, we can see the great successes in Tinsley road and Staniforth road, where enveloping schemes saved the houses and the communities. We went in and did all the work on all the roofs and walls, the damp proofing and the rewiring. The fabric of the properties was tackled all together. Those were good schemes but, unfortunately, Government legislation stopped them.
The Minister will probably say, "The solutions are obvious. All Sheffield city council has to do is to let its vacant properties." So before he does, let me tell him that the council has an excellent record. Only 1.6 per cent. of its properties are vacant—a figure below the Government target of 2 per cent. And before the Minister tells us that we should collect our rents better, I shall tell him that in each of the past five years Sheffield city council has collected 99 per cent. of the rent due for the year. Last year it collected more than 100 per cent., and over a five-year period it has reduced arrears as a percentage of the rent due by one third. The council can be proud of that record, which has been achieved despite the fact that in cash terms rents have increased fivefold since 1979.

Mr. Michie: Tell the Prime Minister.

Mr. Betts: My hon. Friend is talking about the response that he got from the Prime Minister to one of his questions last week.
The solution is obvious. It is about more investment, and the release of capital receipts. Sheffield now has £40 million that could be spent on housing investment, and if it were available we could start the process of renewing housing there, and creating more new homes.
I accept that that would be only a start, but the Government could signal a different attitude towards local authority and other public sector housing. They could accept that there should be diversity in housing, that public sector housing is not second class, and that different people need different types of housing because they have different housing needs at different times in their lives. Some of those needs will properly be met by local authorities, and some by housing associations. There should be no stigma attached to being a council tenant. People should not be regarded as failures if they have not achieved owner-occupier status.
We can investigate innovations such as local housing companies, which are allowed under the Housing Bill. However, I argue strongly that most tenants—certainly those in Sheffield—want to remain with the local authority. Of course there are occasionally complaints about the authority, but by and large there is a good relationship, and tenants want to remain. We should allow investment from the private sector to be made in local housing companies that remain within the public sector.
We must also tackle the problem of renewal in private housing in the old inner-city areas such as Darnall. We need more resources for that, and perhaps we should consider innovations such as combinations of loans and grants to maximise the use of resources, both public and private, to save the infrastructure of those houses before we have to embark on a new slum clearance programme.
We must also deal with the rents in the housing association sector. The idea of rents of £60 a week, which take one third of the income of people who move into the properties, is nonsense.
The housing needs of Sheffield are clear for anyone to see. It is now time to give housing there and throughout the country the priority that it deserves. It is time to give to Sheffield council and other local authorities, and to housing associations, the resources that they need to ensure that housing needs are met. We cannot tackle all the problems at once—no Government can—but at least we can start moving in the right direction.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government's policies to meet housing needs. It may assist the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) if, before turning to the particular issues that he has raised in connection with Sheffield, which I shall discuss in due course, I set those policies in a wider context and deal with some of the wider issues that arise from what he said.
The issue of housing need in general has achieved some prominence recently, with my Department's White Paper and with the work of the Select Committee on the Environment. It may be helpful if I take those, and the Government's policies, as a starting point.
The Select Committee commended the Government for publishing estimates of future housing need. We want to encourage debate—informed debate. The Committee also acknowledged many of the uncertainties in estimating need, and the fact that there is no clear "right answer". It also commended our efforts to improve methodology.
The Committee supported the Government's estimate that 60,000 to 100,000 additional social lettings were required each year. In view of the hon. Gentleman's comments, and his concentration on local authority new build, I shall deal in some detail later with exactly how we are meeting those needs in diverse ways. We share the Committee's view that that estimate is a good starting point for debate. We are considering the Committee's recommendations carefully and will respond to them shortly, so I do not want to anticipate that response today.
At the lower end of the range, public investment is providing an average of about 60,000 additional lettings a year. Investment at that level means that about 300,000 households every year move into a home in the social sector. Provision at that level leaves proper scope for some of the demand to be met by the private sector through additional growth in home ownership and renting.
Home ownership has continued to grow in recent years, and the number of private rented homes has increased faster than expected—to some extent as a result of the Government's successes in reforming the legislative framework for the private rented sector. That does not bear out the view of the pessimists who argue for very high levels of provision of social housing. The number of people in severe housing need is small in absolute terms, and the Government are taking steps to drive the figure lower. We regularly monitor a number of indicators of housing stress, and those show that the numbers of people in overcrowded conditions, in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and sleeping rough have all fallen substantially in recent years.
It is right to put it on record that home ownership is still what the vast majority of people want. Low interest rates, stable house prices and sustained growth in the economy and jobs help to make it more affordable for many.


Our estimate of 1.5 million more owner-occupiers over the next 10 years reflects current trends. They include the replacement of older households by younger and middle-aged households that are more likely to own, and existing rates of right-to-buy sales, to which we attach considerable importance. With continuing growth in home ownership, there has been a 200,000 increase in the past five years in the number of private rented homes and an improvement in quality.
It is important to emphasise, in response to the hon. Gentleman's concentration on local authority new build as the form of provision for social housing, that we must consider the total number of new social lettings that public expenditure provides in several different ways in addition to those that he specified. It would be inaccurate to consider only the figure for local authority new build. That ignores the homes built by housing associations, with local authority housing association grant in some cases; building for low-cost home ownership through housing associations; housing associations that buy rundown private property; and the dwellings freed by incentives to buy in the private sector. All those means help to create provision for meeting social housing need.
Over the five years from 1991 to 1996, public investment has provided about 250,000 homes for social renting or shared ownership by building new homes and rehabilitating old ones. That is meeting the need of the social tenants who move into those properties, irrespective of whether the accommodation is provided by the local authority, a housing association or whatever. The important point is that social housing need is being met. An additional 7,000 social lettings have been created by incentives for tenants to buy their own homes in the private sector, which is good in itself because it gives tenants opportunities as well as releasing homes for others who need social housing.
Public expenditure on new social housing remains high. The Housing Corporation's approved development programme in 1996–97 exceeds £1 billion and it is expected to lever in £827 million in private finance. I take issue with the distinctions that the hon. Gentleman made between public and private finance. He should bear it in mind that that private finance is, in its own way, going to help meet social housing need. It is not adding to the burden on public expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirement. That is an important point. Housing associations have attracted around £6 billion in private finance since 1988–89 to supplement approved development programme and local authority funding.
It is also essential that we make the best use of existing housing stock, both for the housing opportunity that empty dwellings represent and to reduce the need for new development. More than 4 per cent. of housing in England is vacant—about 800,000 homes. In the White Paper, we set a target to reduce that figure to 3 per cent. over the next decade. We intend to do that by encouraging people to rent property rather than leave it empty, by creating the conditions for a healthy housing market so empty homes are sold, by investing through housing associations that buy up rundown properties, repair them and bring them back into use, and by improving the performance of all parts of the public sector, including the local authorities'

strategic role working with the Empty Homes Agency. We are also addressing the issue of homelessness in the Housing Bill that is currently before the House.
The debate about the provision of affordable housing usually involves comments what about could be achieved by freeing up authorities' accumulated capital receipts. That has been touched on tangentially today. There is no escaping the fact that any extra money spent by local authorities from their capital receipts would add to public expenditure and to the public sector borrowing requirement. Local authority debt stood at more than £36 billion in March 1995 and it cost £3.4 billion to service in 1994–95. Our policy of requiring certain proportions of capital receipts to be set aside for debt redemption reduces the burden of servicing local authority debt. That is a prudent approach.
It is important to recognise the separation between the need to spend and the ability to generate receipts. The competitive housing investment programme and local authority capital control systems allow resources to be allocated to the authorities with the greatest needs and those that make the most effective use of them.
As the hon. Gentleman said, in its housing strategy, Sheffield city council estimates a need for 5,600 new homes by the year 2001 and that 40 to 50 per cent. would need to be rented by households that cannot afford to buy at current prices. During the five and a half years to the end of June 1995, an annual average of just over 900 dwellings were started. Sheffield will, of course, benefit from the range of policies that I have described. Homelessness in Sheffield has been falling, from an earlier peak than the national one. In 1995, the homelessness rate in Sheffield was 0.9 per thousand households, compared with the national rate of 1.4.
The hon. Gentleman adverted to the housing investment programme. As he knows, HIP resources are distributed first to regions, then to local authorities using the generalised needs index and indicators for specified capital grant. Housing Corporation resources are allocated in a similar way through another index. A fundamental review of those indicators, especially the new provision indicator, was completed last year and used in the allocations for 1996–97. The changes to both indicators have significantly benefited Sheffield. In addition, stress area enhancement was introduced into the generalised needs index and Sheffield has been a significant beneficiary of that.
On the Housing Corporation and meeting need through housing association, the Housing Corporation's approved development programme resources allocated to Sheffield increased from £5.8 million for 1995–96 to £8.2 million for 1996–97. The total number of lettings provided through all programmes is up from 323 to 500. The competitive approach to housing investment programme allocations continued in allocations for 1996–97, and that produced a £17.9 million HIP allocation to Sheffield.
Sheffield has also benefited from the single regeneration challenge fund, providing a new opportunity for partnerships locally to determine their priorities and develop a holistic approach to regeneration. In the first two years of the single regeneration budget, Sheffield has chosen to concentrate regeneration on areas of housing disadvantage. It has secured two of the largest SRB awards nationally, with approvals of £38 million and £36 million in rounds 1 and 2 respectively. The content of any round 3 bids will be for local decision.
However, Sheffield's performance on some of the housing management indicators remains disappointing in some respects. The hon. Gentleman referred to some of those. There is an issue over the number of empty local authority dwellings available for letting. I understand that there are 708 empty local authority dwellings available for letting. That represents a management voids rate of 1.6 per cent. compared with an average of 1.2 per cent. for similar authorities in the region. It takes an average of 48 days to re-let management voids in Sheffield. I understand that current tenants' rent arrears amount to 4.4 per cent. of the rent roll. That compares with a regional average for similar authorities of 2.8 per cent.

Mr. Betts: First, will the Minister confirm that, in its allocation policy, Sheffield gives people on waiting lists a choice so that they do not have to accept the first home that is offered? That can mean longer periods in which houses are vacant, but it is a good policy. Secondly, on rents, does he accept that overpayments of benefit are put into rent arrears figures in Sheffield but that they are not in many authorities? That distorts the comparison.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman speaks with his special knowledge of Sheffield. The comparisons that I am making are relevant—

Mr. Betts: They are wrong.

Mr. Clappison: They are not wrong; they are accurate. They are between the performance of Sheffield and that of other local authorities in the region.
While I am pleased when Sheffield benefits from Government programmes such as the SRB and estate action, it is important to consider its performance and the ways in which it can be improved. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to cast a critical eye over that performance when it comes to important issues such as voids, which are keeping additional people in housing need through inefficiency, and also rent arrears, which must be an important issue for any local authority. Those are important matters to which Sheffield must give some attention. Clearly, there is room for improvement.
The White Paper emphasised the Government's continuing commitment to improving the condition and diversifying the ownership of social housing through the voluntary transfer of council housing to local landlords. I welcome Sheffield's work on the local authority stock management options study, which has been developing our knowledge of the practicalities of such transfers. We have also initiated the estates renewal challenge fund with £310 million of new money to deal with those issues.
That approach is somewhat at odds with the hon. Gentleman's approach, which concentrated heavily on local authority new build provision as being the only way to meet need. The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are many other ways of doing that.

West Bromwich Building Society

1 pm

Mr. William Powell: I rise to express the anger, frustration, disappointment and despair of thousands of our fellow countrymen and their families who found themselves caught up in the disgraceful scandal over the selling of failed bond-based home income plans.
This is not the first time that the matter has been raised in the House or that I have spoken about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) was the first person to raise the matter in the House, and did so before the last general election. Since early 1992, I do not think that a single day has passed without my being faced with some problem that has arisen because of the outrageous and dishonest way in which such plans were sold, leaving in their wake a trail of human tragedy and disaster.
The home income plans have been a major cause of the suicides of at least three people, because of the circumstances in which they found themselves trapped. The first was a former constituent of mine, Mr. Cyril Whitta. The matter before the House has caused immense grief and great pain, and there is much frustration that, after all these years, the problem has still not been solved.
Although that is the basic background and the general picture is one of gloom and despair, a few shining lights of heroism have inspired me and other right hon. and hon. Members as we have tried in one way and another to tackle the consequences of this fiasco.
I must single out three remarkable individuals—one, a Mr. Craven from east Yorkshire, whom I have never met; the redoubtable and determined Mrs. Hawkins of Bromley in Kent; and Mr. Philip Cheal, formerly of Peterborough and now of Charford—who have held together the group of people who have found themselves to be victims—I use the word advisedly—of that scandal. Their constant work, all of which has been given freely despite the fact that they are no longer as young as they were and have been substantial victims of the scandal, has enabled countless hundreds and even thousands of people to fight on and try to achieve some recompense and justice in the circumstances. Without their efforts, the matter would have been forgotten a long time ago.
I pay tribute to the scores of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been in touch with me and other hon. Members to ensure that matters that their constituents raised with them were properly pursued with the various authorities, including, but not exclusively, those in government. I also pay tribute to the courageous and determined way in which the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have pursued the matter.
Again and again, we three have endeavoured to co-operate on this matter at least, to ensure that it was pursued on an all-party basis and not merely as a series of one-offs affecting individual Members of Parliament but without any co-ordination. Informally, we have tried to act together, and have spent many hours pursuing the matter.
Many other hon. Members have played a part. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) has come into the Chamber


for the debate, because he played a distinguished part in the proceedings of the Treasury Select Committee when it looked into the operation of the Financial Services Act 1986.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who inherited the responsibility last summer, taking over from my hon Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), who is now Minister for Trade and who had handled it for years. She has done all she possibly can, as he did, to ensure that some justice is found for those who were so unhappily caught up in this scandal.
I pay tribute to those in the Securities and Investments Board and the Building Societies Commission. I have taken the matter to the Serious Fraud Office, and it has been in the hands of a number of police forces. All sorts of public authorities of one sort or another have tried to use their influence to bring some pressure to bear and to achieve some solution, so far, for the most part, with an inadequate result.
Those who took out home income plans certainly number more than 10,000. Incredibly, we keep discovering new ones every day. It is likely that around 18,000 people purchased between 1986 and 1988, and the average age is now 74 to 75. Some have achieved settlements with societies and are assured of lifetime occupation, but many are left with debts of £20,000 or more and rising. As time passes, they find that they own less of their home, and, in many cases, the larger part of their equity has already gone.
Several hundred, including most recently Mrs. Vera O'Neil of Woodfield grove, Corby, a constituent of mine, have died not knowing how the matter would finally be resolved. The strain that she and others have been under and the worry of not knowing how the matter could be properly sorted out was extraordinary. All of us who have had personal contact with those involved have seen some of the enormous pressures they faced as a consequence.
The simple fact is that the financial regulatory system has failed because of widespread mis-selling by undertrained and largely under-regulated sales people. Many independent financial advisers have been involved in selling failed plans, which were regulated by the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation—FIMBRA—but which have defaulted.
There are some extraordinary examples. Fisher Pruw Smith was a front for the West Bromwich building society. One of the gentlemen concerned—Mr. Fisher—is still in this country, in Southport, Lancashire, but Mr. Pruw Smith is enjoying the life of Riley no doubt, in Spain. Aylesbury Associates is another front responsible for selling many such plans. Mr. Boerr, the gentleman behind it, is no doubt currently trout farming with great success at Westerham in Kent.
These organisations made outrageous claims to the people who purchased the plans—in particular, that there would be no mortgage involved and that they could not possibly lose their homes. Solicitors acting on behalf of various people failed to point out the legal implications of these matters. I raised this matter in the House a couple of years ago, when we were debating the Report stage of a Finance Bill. We saw examples of application forms

stating incomes that had been forged—sometimes a nought was added on the end of the alleged income of the applicant. We have seen fraudulent misrepresentations, forgery, and disastrous misrepresentations that have left human misery in their wake.
The West Bromwich building society heads the list of infamy of those who were responsible for this behaviour. However, it is not the only building society in the list—alas, Cheltenham and Gloucester building society has not played a distinguished role. I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will draw the remarks that are made in the Chamber today to the attention of those who are mentioned.
When Lloyds bank was contemplating buying out the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society, I wrote to the chairman of the bank and asked him what its policy would be towards Cheltenham and Gloucester home income plan holders. However, I did not have the courtesy of a reply—a matter that did not reflect any credit on Lloyds bank. There are many people in the list of infamy.
Today the Chelsea building society has been drawn to my attention. It is hiding behind another independent financial consultant and claiming that it was not involved in this fraudulent and dishonest behaviour. The case relates to constituents of my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman)—the Shawcrofts, of Burton Latimer, Kettering, Northamptonshire.
I shall concentrate on the West Bromwich building society. At least 800 people purchased home income plans that were backed by the West Bromwich building society. The building society has always sought to defend itself on the grounds that it did not sell the plans, but that independent financial agents did so on its behalf. If that is true, the building society made no attempt to check the integrity of the claims that were being made by independent financial agents who were using the building society to back, sustain and support their product.
I indict the management and the directors of the West Bromwich building society for behaviour and conduct that can be described only as an utter disgrace. These matters were drawn to the attention of the House in early-day motion No. 99 in the session 1994–95 and in a subsequent early-day motion in the following Session of Parliament. They are on the record. The only reaction to the charges that have been made against the West Bromwich building society is libel writs. Like the late Mr. Maxwell, as soon as they are caught and cornered, they aim to stifle criticism by the use of writs.
That is exactly what happened when the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee took evidence from the West Bromwich building society—evidence that many hon. Members will have the opportunity to read. They will see what a miserable show Mr. Baker and Mr. Elliot made of defending the building society. As soon as they left, they issued a libel writ to prevent the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee from publishing documents in its memorandum of evidence that indicted that the building society in the most savage and lethal terms.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I thank the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) for the way in which he has led our little informal group on this issue. I underline the point that he was making, and ask him to extend it one step further.
Is it not true that the perception outside this place and outside Government is that this exercise has been one of prevarication, procrastination and gagging, and that it involves some frail and vulnerable people, whose livelihoods, security and homes are at stake? As the case of the West Bromwich building society indicates, the system has not worked for some of our most frail and vulnerable citizens.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: I am quite certain that, if thousands of depositors in the West Bromwich building society knew the truth about the way in which the managers and directors of the building society have behaved, they would shift their money out of it and hang their heads in shame that a building society could behave like that.
Until recently, I had assumed that the chief executive was the principal villain in this matter and that the board of directors was incapable of controlling a chief executive who was clearly out of control. There is some evidence—I put it no higher than that—that I may have been unkind about the former chief executive, Mr. Elliot, who has now left the West Bromwich building society.
There is no decisive evidence that I am wrong, but one of the ways in which Mr. Elliot can seek to redeem his reputation is by lifting the veil on the true relationship between the West Bromwich building society and Fisher Pruw Smith. He can do that by going to the police. He can spell out exactly what the secret commissions were, and why Fisher Pruw Smith was constantly putting those who sought to borrow in this way under greater pressure to borrow larger sums of money. At no stage was it spelt out that these bond-based plans could never succeed. It has been claimed that a collapse in the housing market and in the stock exchange is why it went wrong. That is not true.
I shall outline a case for hon. Members. A couple borrow £18,000 and, under the bond, in the first month and ever thereafter they have to repay at least £400 per month. If they fail, the shortfall is met out of capital. Meanwhile, if power of attorney is given—whereby the managers of the fund can reinvest it in whatever way they choose to maximise the amount of money that they receive for the investment—each time a reinvestment in different stocks, shares or whatever is made, the managers take 1 per cent. and the building society takes 1 per cent.; that is, 2 per cent. is taken immediately. It is exactly like churning in the Lloyd's market—one does this as often as one possibly can. The capital that was supposed to produce the income that would pay the mortgage was constantly being reduced and, often, fines were added on top. It is small wonder that so many of our constituents now find themselves with debts that cannot possibly be repaid.
The West Bromwich building society has gone out of its way to avoid accepting the moral responsibility it faces for allowing Fisher Pruw Smith, Aylesbury Associates and others to behave as they did. It failed to recognise that it was the principal in all this. In the circumstances, any building society concerned about its reputation would have acted at once to put right the wrong that had taken place. In these cases, the borrowers did not know the truth, and it was never spelt out. The West Bromwich building society took no steps whatsoever to ensure that the truth was spelt out. That is why it deserves our contempt.
Beyond our contempt, and beyond the police action that needs to take place in relation to the directors and the senior managers of the building society, we need to recognise that bodies such as the SIB and others who have the responsibility of making the best they can of our legislation, have stretched the elastic—if I can put it that way—as far as they possibly can. Even then, they have not reached a settlement, because the Financial Services Act 1986 did not contemplate or allow for that position; those who saw teh opportunity to drive a coach and horses through investor protection did so by stealth, and often dishonestly.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, having regard to the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, will take urgent steps to introduce legislation as soon as possible to fill the gaps that have been revealed in this case, and to ensure that a similar scandal can never happen.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) for initiating the debate and for drawing attention to important points. He has worked hard and assiduously on behalf of his constituents and all those who have home income plans. The hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have also played a valuable part in ensuring that the matter is discussed continually in the House and elsewhere, so that the cases of the many people who have been affected are properly and thoroughly considered.
The story of home income plans has been a long and unhappy one for many elderly people. I recognise that it continues to be a worrying time for a considerable number of those who took out such plans. I sympathise deeply.
The schemes were attractive in their time to a specific vulnerable section of the community. Retired people tend to live on a fixed income, which they have little opportunity to augment. Members of that generation believe in helping themselves, and the schemes appeared to offer a way to do just that.
Home income plans were associated with a range of deferred interest mortgages offered by mortgage lenders in the late 1980s. As the term implies, equity release schemes were devised to enable borrowers to release some of the capital from their houses to spend on something specific, to improve their income or for other purposes. In the case of home income plans, which were often targeted at the elderly, the borrower used the proceeds of the loan to purchase a bond or other investment instrument, often from an independent financial adviser, to provide that additional income.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby has ably shown, difficulties have arisen for a sizeable number of elderly people who purchased home income plans in that period, for a combination of reasons that I do not propose to go into, as they have been described so well.
The Securities and Investments Board and the other financial services regulators, the Building Societies Commission, and the Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. have made strenuous efforts to help. To a large degree, they have been successful in dealing with the investment element of those schemes and encouraging many lenders involved to put in place measures that go some way to reassuring people.
The financial services regulators issued strong warnings from 1989, and effectively put a stop to investment-based schemes in 1991. In addition, the Building Societies Commission gave prudential guidance from September 1989 onwards, warning societies of the special problems associated with the equity release loans offered to older people.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Does the Minister agree that, although those home income plans were fundamentally flawed, the West Bromwich building society continued to process applications after the Building Societies Commission had issued those prudential notes? We agree that the regulatory bodies have done their best to encourage the West Bromwich building society to shoulder its responsibilities.
Will the Minister join me in urging the West Bromwich building society today that, if it does not accept any legal obligation toward those borrowers, it should accept a moral obligation? Those elderly people would not have taken out those loans had they not been associated with the good name of building societies, so the West Bromwich building society has a moral obligation to compensate those people and put them back where they began—and certainly not charge premium rates of interest, as it continues to do.

Mrs. Knight: I cannot comment on the reasoning of every individual who took out such a scheme, but, like the hon. Lady, I am worried that some building societies—she mentioned the West Bromwich building society specifically—may not have granted terms similar to those that other building societies have granted in dealing with customers with those plans. The legal position must be considered in detail, but there is a moral obligation.
I hope that the hon. Member for Selly Oak will agree that the meetings that she has had with the Building Societies Commission and the Securities and Investments Board, which have been offered to the three hon. Members who take a special interest in this problem, have been satisfactory—indeed, helpful. I hope that hon. Members will join me in congratulating those two organisations on the help that they have given and the efforts that they have put into this case.
Compensation totalling about £67 million has been paid, which has covered claims from 2,700 investors. I accept that it is not a perfect solution for those who feel themselves victims of home investment plans, but without the compensation arrangements under the Financial Services Act 1986, their position would have been even more difficult. Considerable resources have been deployed by regulators to try to help with these problems.
The subject of the debate is home income plans and West Bromwich building society. The SIB has worked hard to make an arrangement with the society, and is satisfied that the agreement reached is the best that could be achieved in the circumstances.

Mr. William Powell: My hon. Friend mentions the agreement of 11 December between the SIB and the West Bromwich building society. Several other building societies which backed home income plans—such as the Chelsea building society—are not party to that agreement,

and are offering terms even less generous than those that the West Bromwich building society is offering as a result of the agreement of 11 December. Will she therefore use her position to try to ensure that all building societies are covered in similar terms to those laid down in the 11 December document?

Mrs. Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention; I will look into that matter as soon as the debate is over. I understand that the West Bromwich building society is now explaining to every individual borrower what the terms mean and how they apply to them. The Building Societies Commission has launched a separate investigation into several issues that fall within its responsibility as a prudential supervisor, arising from the FIMBRA material about the activities of the West Bromwich building society in connection with home income plans.
Legal actions are pending. Their conduct is for the courts, but I hope that there will not be too many delays. I deplore heel dragging by any group, organisation or individual. It would inevitably have detrimental effects on borrowers who are already in a difficult position. We must wait to find out what happens in the courts, but I sincerely trust that no one will delay the cases or impede their reaching court as soon as possible.
I am told by the West Bromwich building society that hon. Members especially concerned about the activities of the society have not taken advantage of an invitation to visit the society for a discussion with the directors. Obviously, I do not know the ins and outs of invitations that may have been made, but it might be a useful avenue. In a time when annual general meetings provide an opportunity for shareholders to question companies' policies, it is open to members—including borrowing members—of building societies to express their views and anxieties to the board. That avenue is worth considering.
Where does that leave us? Several other building societies have been, and still are, negotiating settlements with individual borrowers. I commend their efforts to help home income plan victims to reach acceptable solutions to their problems. It worries me that cases are still coming to light. Perhaps it does not surprise me, because it is often difficult for people—especially members of the generation involved—to acknowledge that they are in difficulty.
Lenders can take action only if they are aware of the problems. Therefore, I reiterate the advice that has been given on many occasions: borrowers who are in difficulties should approach their lenders to discuss ways in which they can resolve them.
I take this opportunity to welcome the proposed code of mortgage practice about which the Council of Mortgage Lenders is consulting currently. The scheme will enable an ombudsman to oversee the affairs of members who are not parties to existing schemes. The code's form has not yet been worked out, but extending an existing code seems to be a practical way forward. It will certainly assist people in future.
I sincerely sympathise with the difficulties faced by home income plan borrowers and with the views expressed during this brief debate. I will continue to do all within my power to push matters forward and to see the issue resolved. Leaving aside the strict legal argument,


I add my voice to those urging all building societies and other lenders to follow the route of those who have agreed settlements, and to consider seriously—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

Sea Empress Disaster

Mr. Nick Ainger: At the outset, I put on record my tribute to those individuals who were involved in the struggle to save the Sea Empress and to limit the pollution that resulted from her grounding. I pay tribute also to those who have been involved in cleaning up the significant oil pollution affecting not just my constituency but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and those of other hon. Members who represent West Glamorgan.
The debate is about the need for a wide-ranging inquiry—independent of the Department of Transport—into how 70,000 tonnes of oil was allowed to pollute probably the most sensitive and environmentally important marine habitat in the United Kingdom. The Government have asked the marine accident investigation branch to conduct an inquiry, but we do not accept that the inquiry is independent, as Ministers, officials and agencies of the Department of Transport were involved in the disaster, either directly or indirectly. It is the first time that the MAIB has been asked to investigate the actions of Ministers and of civil servants who were operationally involved in an accident which resulted in probably the most damaging oil spillage ever to affect United Kingdom shores.
To appreciate why the marine accident investigation branch inquiry is inadequate, one must understand the events leading to the grounding of the Sea Empress at 20.07 on Thursday 15 February, its subsequent grounding on the night of Monday 19 February, and its final refloating from that position on Wednesday 21 February. The vessel ran aground at seven minutes past 8, and she was refloated within three hours. It is now accepted that less than 2,000 tonnes of oil—possibly as little as 250 tonnes—was spilt in the initial grounding, as the vessel was rapidly refloated by harbour tugs.
On Friday morning, the salvers, Smit Tak—in consortium with the towing companies Cory and Klyne—were appointed. A strategy was apparently agreed early on with the salvers, the marine pollution control unit, the Coastguard Agency and the Milford Haven port authority, that the vessel should be lightened using a small tanker, and held in position in deep water from where she could float safely. It was then planned either to bring the vessel into port or to take her elsewhere for repairs. In the press conferences—fronted by an official from the marine pollution control unit—that were held regularly over the weekend, the media were informed that the situation was under control.
On 15 March, Lloyd's List International published an interview with Mr. Geert Koffeman, the salvage master working for Smit Tak. When asked about the strategy and the decisions that were taken, he replied:
We did not make this decision alone. All parties, from the owner, to the coastguard to everyone involved, contributed to the decision".
It is patently obvious that the marine pollution control unit and the Coastguard Agency were involved in the decision-making process regarding the salvage operation.
Sadly, the expert knowledge of local pilots was ignored, and two opportunities were lost to take the vessel away from what is probably the most dangerous stretch of coastline in western Europe. On Saturday afternoon,


an opportunity was lost to move the vessel from its position, when a pilot with more than 20 years experience suggested that he could take the vessel out to sea safely at high tide. The harbour master informed him, "I'm in a room full of men, and they are all saying no." I believe that the strategy was fundamentally flawed, because the tugs available were not powerful enough to hold the vessel safely in position.
On Monday afternoon, the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to the House, in which he said:
Every effort will be made to prevent any further release of oil."—[Official Report, 19 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 34.]
Within two hours of the Secretary of State's resuming his seat, the salvers had put the Sea Empress on to the rocks in calm weather, during one of the highest tides not just of the year, but of the decade. Despite claims to the contrary, the incident occurred in good weather. That night, I asked pilots who were involved in the operation what had gone wrong. They said that the vessel had been towing the tugs and not the other way round. That is a very important point.
The Government have accepted 80 of the recommendations in Lord Donaldson's report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas"—including those relating to salvage. In chapter 20, paragraph 127 of the report, Lord Donaldson says:
We therefore propose that there should be interim arrangements during the winter months until the new system is fully operational.
He is referring to placing powerful salvage tugs at key positions around the United Kingdom coast.
Lord Donaldson continued:
the UK Government should be prepared to bear the full cost of such interim arrangements. We cannot specify just what interim arrangements will be needed, but they should concentrate on the three key areas we identified: north west Scotland, the Dover Strait and the Western Approaches.
Only two salvage tugs were put in place—one in the Dover strait and the other in north-west Scotland. No tugs were placed in the western approaches. Lord Donaldson also recommended that five powerful salvage tugs should be stationed around our coast.
As a result of the failure to control the Sea Empress, 70,000 tonnes of oil was spilt. Eye witnesses allege that, following the second major grounding on Monday evening, oil was forced from the cargo tank in order to increase the vessel's buoyancy and refloat it. It had been planned to force water from the tanks, but it is alleged that oil was also forced from the vessel in order to allow it to float free. In other words, oil was discharged deliberately—which we know is an offence—and it is claimed that that was done with the agreement of the marine pollution control unit.
The damage caused to the coast of south-west Wales, to the Bristol channel and to the Irish coast is quite appalling. More than 3,000 seabirds were killed. A similar number were cleaned, but, unfortunately, many of them will not live very long. Two marine nature reserves, Skomer and Lundy, were polluted, and 26 sites of special scientific interest were affected. Many forms of wildlife have suffered, and we believe that one—a rare species of starfish, the asterina phylactica—has been wiped out. It was only discovered in 1979 in West Angle bay, and that bay was the one most polluted by the spillage.
Miles of holiday beaches have also been heavily polluted. The whole fishing industry operating between St. David's head and Port Eynon point has been put on stop, as well as all angling on the rivers leading into that sea area. In addition to the massive environmental damage, from which the area will take years to recover, there is likely to be long-term economic damage.
The main holiday beaches have been cleaned and other beaches are being tackled. I pay tribute again to all the people who have done that excellent job. There is no reason for tourists not to return to those beaches. The intention is to have all amenity beaches fully cleaned by Whitsun—but the damage has been done. It is impossible to cost the environmental damage. What price a rare starfish or oiled scotes? The estimated clean-up costs are in the region of £10 million, and compensation for the fishing and tourist industries is likely to run into many tens of millions of pounds.
No wonder such anger is felt in my constituency, in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom. Last night, I presented a petition to the House signed by 25,000 people, calling for an independent inquiry. This morning, I was part of a deputation that delivered to 10 Downing street pledges and petitions signed by more than 80,000 people, calling for the protection of wildlife and an independent inquiry. More than 100,000 people have expressed their outrage at the environmental damage done, and the need for a truly independent, comprehensive inquiry.
Not only individuals but literally every organisation directly or indirectly connected with the environment—including local councils, community councils, district councils, new unitary authorities, the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—is calling for an independent inquiry, which should examine not just why the Sea Empress grounded and the salvage operation, but why Lord Donaldson's recommendations were not fully implemented.
The inquiry should also examine salvage law and the operation of Milford Haven port authority, which did not have an operational radar covering the entrance to a particularly dangerous stretch of water. That inadequacy is almost beyond belief, and that radar is still not fully operational.
It is clear from evidence already available that the current marine accident investigation branch inquiry is perceived as an inquiry by the Department of Transport into itself. How can we ask civil servants—at the end of the day, that is what they are—to investigate and comment on the decisions of their political masters, Ministers, in relation to whether Donaldson's recommendations were implemented? How can we ask civil servants to investigate their colleagues in the Department of Transport who were directly involved in the salvage operation?
The MAIB inquiry cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be perceived as independent. It is like the arms to Iraq scandal, which Lord Justice Scott was rightly appointed to investigate. What would have been the public's response if civil servants from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office had been asked to investigate the actions of Ministers and other civil servants? Such a proposal would have been laughed out of court, yet that is the situation in relation to the Sea Empress incident.
I do not cast any aspersions on the integrity or expertise of the marine accident investigation branch, but it is totally unfair of the Secretary of State to make it undertake such an inquiry. The Secretary of State has told me that nobody questions the independence of the air accident investigation branch. However, as far as I am aware, the AAIB has never been asked to investigate an air crash in which civil servants from the Department of Transport were in the pilot seat and the Secretary of State was in the air traffic control tower—which was the comparable situation in the case of the Sea Empress.
The Government fail to understand that the Sea Empress incident was different in its size and impact from any other major pollution incident. It was also more complex, and, most importantly, Ministers and civil servants were directly or indirectly involved in the whole operation. It is vital for my constituents, the rest of Wales and everyone concerned about the environment that the inquiry and its report has credibility and the confidence of the individuals and organisations affected directly or indirectly by the pollution. The inquiry's recommendations must carry weight.
Effective recommendations are urgently needed and lessons must be quickly learned, so that such a disaster can never happen again. I urge the Government to appoint Lord Donaldson of Lymington, who has already said that, if the Government were minded to invite him to oversee the inquiry, he would be pleased to accept. That is the only way to produce rapidly a report that is thorough, objective and independent.
I have been assured by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that, when the next Government are in place—and it will be ours—they will insist that an independent element is injected into the inquiry. We do not want to restart the inquiry, but if the report is to be credible, it is vital that the inquiry is independent and that Lord Donaldson is asked to oversee it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on securing a debate on the circumstances surrounding the Sea Empress disaster. I heard a large number of assertions, anecdotes, conversations at third hand and snippets of apparent conversations with some of the persons involved in the inquiry. No doubt some of that material is relevant, but I suspect that a great deal of it will prove not to be so.
There is no disagreement between us that, following the grounding of the Sea Empress at the entrance to Milford Haven harbour on that fateful 15 February, the subsequent salvage operation was severely hampered by heavy weather—and that, by the time the ship could be successfully refloated and its remaining cargo transferred to another vessel, an estimated 72,000 tonnes of oil, roughly half the ship's cargo, had been spilled.
The Government—not only the Department of Transport but the Welsh Office; I note that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is in his place—are as concerned as anyone about the incident, particularly as it occurred in an area of outstanding natural beauty and environmental importance.
I acknowledge entirely what the hon. Member for Pembroke said about the crisis nature of the effect on some of the flora and fauna; that is to be regretted, whatever the outcome of subsequent inquiries or proceedings. It is accepted that, despite the best efforts of Governments and industry in every country, we will never be able totally to eradicate the possibility of marine accidents of that type. We must do, we are doing and we will continue to do, all that we can to reduce the risk.
The marine accident investigation branch, about which I will say more later, has begun a comprehensive investigation into all aspects of the grounding and the planning, execution and direction of the salvage operation and its effectiveness in minimising the pollution. It has already released a special bulletin that included its interim findings on the cause of the incident. The MAIB's final report will be published.
The MAIB was established by Parliament in 1988 to provide an expert body capable of carrying out investigations of the kind that we are discussing today, independently of the shipping industry and of the Department of Transport. The chief inspector of the MAIB reports directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Under the terms of the legislation which created the MAIB, its investigations are to determine the circumstances and causes of accidents, with the aim of improving safety of life at sea and avoiding accidents in the future.
The chief inspector will consider all evidence and arguments submitted to him which he feels are relevant. He has said that the investigation into the Sea Empress will consider, in addition to the issues that led to the grounding, the conduct of the salvage operation; the availability of salvage tugs—

Mr. Ron Davies: Will he consider ministerial competence?

Mr. Norris: —the implementation of Lord Donaldson's recommendation that consideration should be given to a salvage tug being stationed in the western approaches; the question of double hulls, which the hon. Member for Pembroke did not mention, although I know he has raised the question before—

Mr. Davies: What about ministerial incompetence?

Mr. Norris: —the safety of port operations, which the hon. Member rightly raised today; and the effects, if any, that current salvage law may have had on the actual conduct of the salvage operation.
I shall now deal with the sedentary remarks from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) about the competence and culpability of Ministers. The hon. Gentleman is the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, but he is free with his remarks on a wide variety of subjects. I always listen to those remarks with avidity and interest, but on this occasion we should confine his responsibility merely to Wales.
The implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is offensive to the chief inspector and staff of the MAIB, and I say that in all sobriety and seriousness, for the following reason. It is quite outrageous to suggest that the chief inspector would be prepared to do other than to report fully, in terms, about the causes, circumstances


and necessary remedies surrounding the Sea Empress disaster. If there were to be questions that touched on the competence or conduct of Ministers, be they my noble Friend Lord Goschen or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, the chief inspector would not for a second hesitate to address them.
If I may say so, the extraordinary remarks by the hon. Member for Caerphilly are matched by the equally offensive implication from the hon. Member for Pembroke that the independence of the marine accident investigation branch would be so compromised that, simply because both its staff and the officers in my Department are civil servants, the marine accident inspectors would not be prepared to criticise the conduct of fellow officials.
The hon. Gentleman made a laughable comparison with the Scott inquiry, as if there were the slightest relevance to the Scott inquiry. The hon. Gentleman is a very bright Member of the House, and he knows perfectly well that the real analogy is the equal independence that is afforded to the air accident investigation branch.

Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: No, I will not, because I have only six minutes left.
The hon. Member for Pembroke asked whether there had been any precedent for the investigation of the conduct of Ministers. It may not or may not be the case that this is the first occasion on which an Opposition Member has alleged that somehow a Minister has been personally responsible for the conduct of operations of that sort: I cannot comment on that. However, whether that assertion arises from Opposition Members or from any other source, if there is the slightest substance in such an assertion, the chief inspector will report on it.
I confirm, here and now and on the record, that the chief inspector need not fear for one second the consequence of making whatever recommendations he feels are right. I can say that, in the entire confidence that the chief inspector and all his staff are officials of the highest integrity, for whom we have the greatest respect.

Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman took his allotted time, and I refused the request of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I now have just under five minutes.
The hon. Member for Pembroke said that he has managed to persuade many people that they should sign petitions calling for a public inquiry. That is not an entirely astonishing result, given that, for the vast majority of people, the idea of a public inquiry is synonymous with the idea of coming to an independent result and conclusion on an issue that is undoubtedly of considerable importance.
I am frankly not in the slightest surprised that the hon. Gentleman managed to collect thousands of signatures—indeed, had he been more diligent, he would probably have collected many more. I am astonished at the ability

of countless thousands of our fellow citizens to sign petitions, and I admire immensely the comprehensive nature of their understanding of such issues.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The Minister is being contemptuous.

Mr. Norris: I may have been contemptuous to the hon. Member for Pembroke, but I am not contemptuous about those who have signed the petitions.
My assertion, which the hon. Gentleman would not seriously seek to deny, is—I guarantee it—that the vast majority of those who signed those petitions were unaware of the existence of the MAIB. I defy the hon. Gentleman to tell the House that his petition, at any point, referred to the relative merits or otherwise of a public inquiry or a MAIB inquiry; I note that he does not seek to do so.
The Government have frequently made the point that a public inquiry is an adversarial inquiry, involving legal representation, which takes a long time to organise, to hear and to sift through enormous amounts of wide-ranging evidence and to produce a report. It would also be difficult to prevent the evidence to a public inquiry from ranging far beyond what is relevant to the Sea Empress accident.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I hope that this is a genuine point of order, because there are only two minutes to go in this debate.

Mr. Jones: Is it in order for the Minister to ignore completely the issue which is being debated here today, for an independent inquiry—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is responsible for his speech.

Mr. Norris: I note the further time-wasting by the Opposition.
Experience has tended to show, if one compares the relative merits of an MAIB inquiry with a public inquiry, that the latter tends to obscure the truth rather than illuminate it.

Mr. Paul Tyler: What about Donaldson?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Liberal Democrats is far too intelligent to fail to appreciate that the Donaldson report considered all matters relating to vessels' safety and the prevention of pollution from merchant shipping following the Braer disaster. It was not, as he well knows, an inquiry into the accident itself.
Until the MAIB report and Professor Edwards' assessment—Professor Edwards will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—have been completed and their recommendations considered, it would be inappropriate to suggest that there is a need to


re-examine or amplify any of Lord Donaldson's recommendations. We have made it clear that we respect the conclusions of Lord Donaldson's report—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half- past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Access to Work

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if unemployed people will be required to make a personal contribution to support given under access to work. [25078]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): Unemployed people will not be required to make a contribution to approved support under access to work.

Mrs. Jackson: I wish slightly to extend my question so that the Minister can tell us whether the Government's U-turn on increasing the budget for access to work so that individuals in work can also benefit is a result, in his view, of impressive campaigning for restoration by disabled people throughout the country in work and out of work.
One of my constituents is Julie Smethurst, a self-employed Braillist. Will the Minister take the opportunity to clarify whether she, as a self-employed worker, will be able to benefit from restoration for the maintenance of her essential equipment, which enables her to stay in work?

Mr. Paice: The hon. Lady obviously has not studied what has already been going on, or she would not have been so nonplussed by my main answer. We have studied what took place in access to work and the increasing demands that were being made on it last year. That is why the Government made available a 50 per cent. increase for access to work's budget this year. That is a clear demonstration of the Government's understanding of the importance of access to work for disabled people.
The hon. Lady should know that self-employed people will be eligible again for access to work as from 1 June. My noble Friend the Minister of State, who deals specifically with these matters in the Department, is reviewing precisely the terms of assistance for self-employed people under access to work, but I can confirm that they will be eligible.

Mr. David Nicholson: The earlier exchange that my hon. Friend had with the hon. Lady is the best example that I can remember in recent years of a typical Labour party smear falling, as it were, at the first fence. Will my hon. Friend continue his efforts to improve all the resources and services that are available to unemployed people, whatever their age? Will he contrast this country's record in reducing the number of unemployed of all ages with the records of countries that until recently were governed by socialist Governments, such as France and Spain?

Mr. Paice: I am not even sure that the hon. Lady's question reached the first fence, but the idea of a smear jumping a fence leaves me somewhat perturbed. It is more likely that it slipped over before it started.
My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw careful attention to the Government's success in reducing unemployment for all people, be they disabled or otherwise. Through access to work and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Government have put in place important measures to help disabled people, but he is also right to identify the fact that jobs are created by successful businesses. The countries to which he has drawn attention, such as France, have prevented their businesses from being successful and from creating jobs because they have burdened them with the minimum wage, the social chapter and various other burdens on employers, which act against the interests of all people, disabled or otherwise.

Mr. Llwyd: I welcome the access to work budget increase, but has the Minister considered the effect of employer contributions on smaller firms? Surely it is not right that multinationals and small firms employing typically fewer than 20 people should pay the same amount of contributions. Will he consider targeting the scheme slightly better and enabling smaller firms to take on more disabled people?

Mr. Paice: Eighty-four per cent. of disabled people are employed in firms of more than 20 employees—more than the number employed in firms of fewer than 20 employees, which are exempted from the Disability Discrimination Act. It is not possible specifically to target help at smaller firms, because the legislation says that access to work is assistance to the individual, not to the firm. Therefore, in terms of the size of firms, we are prevented from discriminating in targeting the scheme.

Youth Unemployment

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the prospects for youth unemployment in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU countries. [25079]

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Unemployment among young people in the United Kingdom is well below the European Union average. The prospects for our young people are good, so long as we do not destroy jobs by a national minimum wage or other unnecessary and damaging regulations.

Mr. Waterson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in this country, unemployment among the under-25s is some 5 per cent. below the European average and roughly half that in France? Is he aware of the Employment Policy Institute's view that a national minimum wage would destroy job prospects, especially among small firms? Would a minimum wage not be a gross betrayal of our young people?

Mr. Forth: It must now be the case that the Labour party is the last organisation in this country not to recognise the folly of a statutory national minimum wage. Everyone else has—the expert institute that my hon. Friend has mentioned, and, more significantly, the electorate and especially young people. All of them realise that countries that have statutory national minimum wages have extraordinarily high youth unemployment and,


generally, higher unemployment. I expect that, eventually, the Labour party will notice that connection, but not, I hope, before the general election.

Mr. Byers: Will the Minister confirm that, as a percentage of total unemployment, in 1995 youth unemployment in the United Kingdom stood at 28.8 per cent., twice that in Germany and lower than that in only three other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in the European Union? In the light of that, will he concede that this is an issue not of the minimum wage but of the opportunities that we give to our young people? When will the Government invest in young people's future by providing a high-quality training programme to give them the skills that they need, or are the Government prepared simply to stand to one side and see a whole generation be the innocent victims of their failed economic and social policies?

Mr. Forth: I readily pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's ever more ingenious use of statistics and figures. He has excelled himself today by digging up a convoluted and obscure figure which means nothing to anyone. Let me give him a straightforward fact that will demonstrate that he is on the wrong track. The latest figures available show that, six months after leaving training, 71 per cent. of young people completing youth training in England and Wales were in a job. That demonstrates the effectiveness of what we are doing as well as anything else could.

Mr. Garnier: If my hon. Friend wants evidence to support the facts that he has announced, will he come to my constituency, where he will find that the unemployment level is 1,750, out of an electorate of more than 79,000, and that schools are actively engaged in making links with industry and industry is actively engaged in making links with schools to produce the courses, both at apprenticeship and in schools, that benefit the employment sector? Will he further invite the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), who asked that fatuous question, to have a look for himself at what is going on in the real world?

Mr. Forth: I am delighted by my hon. and learned Friend's typically positive approach. It typifies the Conservative party's recognition of real success at local level, with different institutions working together to achieve positive results. I doubt very much whether Opposition Members are sufficiently interested or motivated to go to observe a success story for themselves, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will have more luck in persuading Opposition Front Benchers of the success to which he referred than I seem to be having.

Secondary School Places

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received from parents regarding allocation of secondary school places for 1996–97. [25080]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): The Department receives many inquiries from parents about school admissions in general.

Mr. Pike: Because schools do not have elastic walls, it is not possible for all children to go to the school of their

choice. Does the Minister accept, however, that often parents are disappointed if they cannot send their children to a school that is one of their first three preferences, given that all three preferences are reasonable? Will she support local authorities that must provide additional capacity to meet the demands of such parents?

Mrs. Gillan: I hope that my hon. Friend on the Opposition Benches has checked the policy that he is developing with his Front Benchers. The Government are committed to continuing to extend parental choice and ensuring that as many parents as possible can send their children to the school that is their first preference.
There are, of course, good schools that are always over-subscribed, and parents who have been disappointed by the result; but a recent survey by the National Foundation for Educational Research shows that 85 per cent. of parents are satisfied, or very satisfied, with admission procedures or outcomes. I should have thought that, following the decisions of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in regard to the allocation of secondary school places, rather more representations would have been received by Opposition Front Benchers than by my Department.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that extra money from the Funding Agency for Schools for England to increase the size of excellent secondary schools such as the direct grant schools in my constituency is not a full solution to the problem in residential and highly built-up areas such as Ruislip-Northwood? Will she ensure that parental choice is better achieved by preventing pupils from flooding across boundaries to the detriment of such choice?

Mrs. Gillan: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I repeat that the Government are committed to extending choice and diversity. That is a key element of our overall strategy of levering up standards and enabling pupils to realise their full potential, regardless of which school they go to and where it is.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister claims that parental choice is being extended in regard to selective secondary schools. What evidence has she that the performance of secondary school pupils at 16-plus can be assessed on the basis of assessments of primary school pupils at 11-plus?

Mrs. Gillan: It is obvious that the Government's strategy to extend choice is driving up standards throughout our schools. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman's party does not adopt our policies. We have given parents more choice through more open enrolment; we have provided them with more and better information, partly through the publication of performance tables and school prospectuses; we have given them the right to vote for grant-maintained status; and we are encouraging schools and local education authorities to respond to parental demand for selection, partial selection or specialisation. It is a pity that Opposition Front Benchers do not take a bit more notice of the hon. Gentleman's views.

Special Schools

Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on special schools. [25082]

Mrs. Gillan: The Government believe, after taking account of parents' wishes, that pupils with special educational needs can usually best be educated in mainstream schools, but for the small proportion of children with exceptional difficulties there is a continuing need for a thriving special school sector.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work in this sphere. His report, "Going the Distance", has highlighted key issues in relation to children with autism.

Mr. Booth: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her kind remarks and for her excellent answer. Will she also praise my local school that deals with autism—Oak Lodge—and tell the House that the care and education of children with autism are very high priorities for the Government?

Mrs. Gillan: I am willing to pass on my congratulations to my hon. Friend's local school, and I assure him that special schools are of course given great consideration by my Department.
I hope that my hon. Friend will continue his sterling work in the sphere of autism—with the National Autistic Society and with the North East London Autistic Society. Perhaps he and other hon. Members would like to know that, among others, Ealing, which has an independent school for autistic children, recently increased its number of places; Enfield recently opened a new primary school for 60 pupils with autism; and Waltham Forest, which has a grant-maintained special school, has extensive provision for autistic pupils. There are many more examples of such schools, which I should be happy to provide to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister be kind enough to consider the effects on special schools of vandalism and arson, which are causing those schools to spend a great deal of money on security that should be spent on the children? I refer especially to the Emily Forte school in my constituency. which has suffered greatly from a recent arson attack and does not have the money to build the security fence that it so badly needs.

Mrs. Gillan: I join the hon. and learned Gentleman in expressing sadness that the Emily Forte school should have suffered an unprovoked attack. I am very willing to listen to any representations that he has to make on this matter, and I join him in sending best wishes to the school.

Mr. Barry Field: May I extend an invitation to my hon. Friend to come to visit St. Catherine's school at Ventnor on the Isle of Wight? She will be pleased to know that, very unusually for an Isle of Wight institution, that school does not serve many residents of the island and their children, but it performs a wonderful job on behalf of the local authorities that send to the island children who have very severe speech impediments. In no time at

all, those children are able to earn GCSEs and leave the island with a good education. I think that the hon. Lady would be very impressed to see the work that it does.

Mrs. Gillan: That is a charming invitation, and I shall certainly consider whatever possibility there is of visiting the Isle of Wight, as my hon. Friend suggests. I know of the extremely good work that is carried out across the country in special schools. In my constituency, the Heritage House school for pupils with severe learning difficulties provides an excellent service to the community, as does the Endeavour centre, which is next to it and provides on-going learning for adults with disabilities. I should be pleased to consider my hon. Friend's invitation.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister agree that, for a minority of pupils with special needs, there will almost certainly always be a need for special schools? Will she tell us exactly what is the Government's thinking on the great challenge of moving ahead to mainstream education for the children who will not always need special schools? Will she tell us, for example, the practical actions that her Department is taking to improve accessibility for special needs children in primary and secondary schools? Will she accept that, because of the absence of necessary funding, very often local management do not regard that as a priority, and that is one of the saddest and most unacceptable features of our modern educational system?

Mrs. Gillan: I would be delighted if the Labour party would develop clear policies on these issues, because its policies have been notable by their absence so far. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has also failed to note that the Government recently announced a £10 million boost for local education authorities and school governors to make almost 800 primary and secondary schools more accessible to pupils with disabilities.
On individual education plans and special education needs co-ordinators—because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is interested in them—we are examining the assessment process and good practice, and we plan to report in the autumn on good practice for preparing IEPs and on good practice in schools in relation to SENCOs.

Group of Seven Summit

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the recent G7 summit. [25083]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): All the G7 countries agreed on the need for stable macro-economic policies and for a more flexible and deregulated labour market. Those policies are in place in the United Kingdom, which is why we have a higher proportion of our people in jobs and fewer people out of work than most of the rest of Europe.

Mr. Bottomley: Did the Presidents, Prime Ministers and other Ministers of the G7 countries explain why countries outside Europe found many of their businesses investing here and why other G7 countries in Europe are copying many of the policies carried out by this Government?

Mrs. Shephard: The question of inward investment was discussed at some length, and some envy was expressed about the United Kingdom's position. Many people shared the views of the chairman of the executive board of BMW, who recently said:
Structural change has made Britain by far the most attractive place to invest in Europe.

Mr. MacShane: As a great student of France, the Secretary of State will welcome the visit to the House to be made by President Chirac in a couple of weeks' time. At the G7 Employment Ministers' summit in Lille, President Chirac appealed for what he called a third way in which social rights would be respected. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the International Labour Organisation, whose director-general addressed that summit, is now a welcome partner at the G7 discussions? Will she also confirm that Britain should turn the page on an era of some hostility to the ILO, accept ILO recommendations on British labour law and not treat it as some authoritarian, tinpot, third-world countries do, refusing to co-operate and work with it in the future?

Mrs. Shephard: The ILO does a valuable job in those spheres with which it should be concerned. My opposite number—the French Employment Minister—was so impressed by what she heard about what we are doing in this country that she is visiting not only some of our Employment Service offices but some of our regeneration areas. The President of France intends to do the same. I think that is quite a compliment to this country's successes.

Employment Creation

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on employment creation over the last 24 months (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other EU countries. [25084]

Mr. Forth: Over the past two years, the United Kingdom has created more jobs than any other major European Union country.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend for that surprising answer. Might it have anything to do with the fact that the cost of employing someone in France is apparently an extra 32 per cent. and that in Germany it costs an employer an extra 41 per cent? Is it true that in Britain the figure is only 18 per cent? Could it have anything to do with the social chapter? Could it mean that, if we signed the social chapter, we would have as many unemployed in this country as the rest of Europe has?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to a very important difference between us and many of our partners on the continental mainland, which is that the Government have made a determined effort over a period to reduce the burdens on business and to reduce the cost of employment in order that businesses can expand and take people on. Our falling unemployment figure demonstrates the success of that policy.
We must not allow other countries to seek to impose their failed policies on us. We must all, as member states of the European Union, be free to pursue those policies which most suit us and allow us to maximise our competitiveness. That will continue to be our intention.

Mr. O'Hara: Could not it be the case that the suggested increase in the number of jobs created and the suggested fall in unemployment have more to do with changes in the number of the population who are economically active? What evidence does the Minister have that we have created more jobs in this country? The Government commonly make comparisons with France, where unemployment is indeed now higher than in this country, but, whereas there has been a fall of more than 300,000 in those economically active in this country, there has been an increase of more than 500,000 in the number of those economically active in France. The one is the mirror image of the other—is it not about time that the Minister came clean instead of doing it with mirrors?

Mr. Forth: Talking about mirrors, we are hearing a series of convoluted and clever, but utterly irrelevant, manipulations of figures from Opposition Members. [Interruption.] The truth is much more simple, as always. By any comparison, the record of this country compared to that of our major partners and competitors in the European Union is much superior. I could cite a whole range of factors in evidence.
For example, our female participation rate, something of which we can be proud and in which we can take pleasure, is infinitely higher than in France—especially—and many other mainland continental countries. In almost every respect, we are demonstrating that the policies that we are pursuing are much more favourable and beneficial to employment and competitiveness than those of our partners. All the figures suggest that, and no amount of mirrors or manipulation by Opposition Members will conceal it.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my hon. Friend noted that one in three young people in Spain are unemployed? Could the Spanish Government's adherence to the social chapter and their adoption of socialist policies such as a national minimum wage have more than a little to do with the defeat of that socialist Government at the hands of the Spanish electorate?

Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed. It gives me no pleasure, as I know it gives my hon. Friend no pleasure, to record that, in Spain, there is extraordinarily high unemployment, an extraordinary percentage of the working population are on temporary contracts, and youth unemployment, for example, is unacceptably high. There must surely be a direct link between the policies of the failed socialist Government—recently rejected by the Spanish electorate—and the alarmingly high unemployment figures that have been inflicted on the people of Spain. I hope that that penny will drop here and that that message, which I am sure my hon. Friend will help to disseminate, will draw people's attention to the failure of socialist policies.

Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the past two and a half years, the Government's deeply flawed unemployment figures have shown a fall of 750,000 but their much more reliable employment figures


have shown a rise of only 300,000? Far from getting a job, 400,000 people have given up even trying, because there are no jobs. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his own Department's figures also show that more than half those who got a job a year ago are back on benefit?
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, since 1979, which is what matters, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's figures, Britain has the worst job creation record of any of the 15 EU states, with the exception only of Sweden and Finland? There are now fewer jobs in Britain than there were in 1979. Does that not show that, contrary to what the Secretary of State says, other European Governments at the Lille jobs summit were absolutely right to reject her deregulated labour market policies out of hand and with the contempt that they deserve?

Mr. Forth: It used to be thought that most of the Labour party's resources were going on spin doctors. I am beginning to get the impression that even more resources are going on numerical manipulation in support of Labour Members. So desperate are they about our record of success in bringing unemployment down—this is a sad comment on them—that they are having to dig up the most obscure and irrelevant figures they can find to create an atmosphere of gloom and pessimism, when in fact it is one of increasing confidence.
It is a sad comment on Opposition Members that they should feel the need to do that. They must understand that the electorate will not be impressed by such a message.

Mr. Michael Brown: I am sorry to take my hon. Friend to task. However, when the most recent unemployment figures were announced and a reduction occurred, I did not see my hon. Friend on the electronic news media. Can he confirm that it was only because the figures were falling that the media were not interested in interviewing him? Do they interview him only if the figures go up? Did he seek to go on the media to explain the excellent figures?

Mr. Forth: I can confirm that my humble services were indeed offered to the electronic media the day before we were due to announce the unemployment figures. It was indicated to us by at least one television channel that it would be interested in interviewing me only if the unemployment figure went up and that if, tragically, the figure went down, that fact would not be considered newsworthy. My hon. Friend, therefore, sitting, as ever, eager for my appearance, failed to see me on that occasion. He has put his finger on one of the great sadnesses of the media's attitude today, which is that bad news is news and good news is ignored.

Manufacturing (West Midlands)

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of employment prospects in the manufacturing sector in the west midlands. [25085]

Mr. Forth: The number of employees in manufacturing has risen by 2 per cent. in the west midlands since 1992, reflecting the United Kingdom's success as the enterprise centre of Europe, not least the highest output in the car industry of any February for 20 years.

Mr. Cunningham: Given that answer, is the Minister aware of, and would he like to comment on, the Confederation of British Industry survey and the Department of Trade and Industry survey, which state that 16,000 jobs so far have been lost in the manufacturing sector this quarter and which project that another 5,000 will go by June? Is that not in sharp contrast to the Government's earlier boasting about the jobs that they were creating? Yet we do not have a social chapter.

Mr. Forth: The more relevant figures can be obtained by looking at a longer period. One then sees that the number of people employed in manufacturing generally, as in the west midlands, is going up. The snapshot figure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is not representative. The reality is that the proportion of the work force involved in manufacturing in this country is broadly similar to the proportion in France and in Italy, for example. It is greater than the proportion in north America—the United States and Canada.
The reality is that our manufacturing sector is proving to be extraordinarily successful in that productivity, production and exports are continuing to go up. However, manufacturing does not need to employ the same number of people as in the past. That is a record of success, not failure, and we should recognise it as such.

Sir Norman Fowler: Is it not the case that, in a survey published today, the west midlands chambers of commerce forecast that, over the next 12 months, there will be an increase in profitability and turnover in manufacturing industry in the west midlands? Is it not the case that the only thing that can prevent that from flowing through into more jobs is the old Labour policies of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)?

Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend and I are right to celebrate the success of the west midlands and the effect that that has on our constituents. We can see the vigour of the west midlands manufacturing industry. It is enjoying the environment created by the Government which has enabled industry to increase its output and to increase exports. The automobile industry in particular is now a spectacular success story in the west midlands, enabling more and more people to be employed in meaningful manufacturing industry. That should be recognised and celebrated, as it is by Conservative Members.

Mr. Ian McCartney: The Minister's response is incredible only a few days after a 22 per cent. swing against the Conservatives in South-East Staffordshire, which is in the midlands. That swing was due entirely to the Government's economic record of job insecurity. Across the midlands as a whole, 96,000 young people are still unemployed. Across the midlands, there were more people unemployed in March 1996 than there were in March 1991. There have been 50,000 job losses in manufacturing since—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am waiting for the hon. Gentleman to put a question.

Mr. McCartney: I apologise, Madam Speaker; I was just trying to cheer the Minister up. In fact, I shall cheer him up—

Madam Speaker: And ask him a question.

Mr. McCartney: Yes. Will the Minister tell us clearly whether he agrees with the analysis in a letter sent by the President of the Board of Trade to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in which the right hon. Gentleman says that he expects further job losses in manufacturing over the next few months?

Mr. Forth: Yes indeed; there will be further job losses in manufacturing over the next few months—but almost certainly there will be a greater number of job gains in that sector over the same period. That is the economic reality that we recognise. Unfortunately, Opposition Members still seem to live in some dim and distant past in which they think that jobs can be made permanent and protected.
Regrettably, in a modern, flexible, competitive economy, jobs are lost in some sectors—but they are gained in others. This country attracts more than one third of the total inward investment into the European Union, which signifies that overseas investors have full confidence in our economy and in our management of it. We shall continue to see an increase in the number of manufacturing jobs, but those will not necessarily be the same jobs as they were yesterday, last year or the last decade.

Independent Schools (Inspections)

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement about the inspection of independent schools. [25086]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): All independent schools in England are monitored by Ofsted to ensure satisfactory standards. Those with boarding provision are also inspected by local social services departments to safeguard pupils' welfare.

Mr. Jamieson: As the Government originally proposed to inspect independent schools once every seven years, can the Minister explain why the chief inspector of schools has written to me to say that up to three schools, out of 2,294, will be inspected next year? I make that an inspection once every 700 years. As £350 million of taxpayers' money is being spent in independent schools, how will the Minister ensure that the taxpayer is getting good value for money, and, more importantly, how will he ensure that children's education does not suffer in the poorer state-subsidised private schools?

Mr. Squire: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for pursuing that subject in general. Exactly a week ago he pursued it at greater length in a speech that I have read, and will return to, which was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The hon. Gentleman made several suggestions, and I shall think about them.
As for the issue that he has just raised, he and the House know that the inspection of independent schools, like many aspects of that sector, is separate from the way in which we treat maintained schools—essentially because we believe in minimal regulation, commensurate with proper protection of children at those schools. I welcome the interest that the hon. Gentleman and his party take in independent schools. Of course, I recognise that both his

party and the Liberal Democrats would be leaderless without independent schools, so obviously those schools must perform a useful function.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one factor in the success of independent schools and their standards is that, if parents are dissatisfied, they can walk away and take their children to another school? Will he also confirm that the Government are totally committed to the vigorous independent school sector that has undoubtedly added to the strength of this country. Moreover, the children in those schools do not cost the country one penny for their education.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend, with her wide knowledge of education, is absolutely right. The independent sector in general is indeed a jewel in the crown of education in this country. In that sector parents have the choice of withdrawing their children and taking them elsewhere. There are a variety of different inspections that cover the independent sector, and as my hon. Friend knows, but as it is worth reminding the Opposition, our faith in that sector is strong enough for us to have announced the doubling of assisted places for children whose parents are not so well off.

Schools (Selection)

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has had regarding selection as a means of extending choice and diversity in education. [25087]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I receive frequent representations on that subject.

Mr. Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Dixie grammar school and Wolstan preparatory school in my constituency on joining the new assisted places scheme for seven, 10 and 11 year-olds? Does she not find it strange that a scheme that assists the children of the less well-off should be so fiercely opposed by Opposition Members? When will she expand the scheme further?

Mrs. Shephard: I have no difficulty in congratulating the successful schools that my hon. Friend mentioned. We are firmly in favour of the assisted places scheme because we believe that it extends further choice to children from less well-off families—a policy that one would indeed think that Opposition Members would be happy to espouse but against which they have firmly set their faces.

Mr. Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether on Monday, when she was attempting to curry favour with the right by backing the Euro-sceptics, she knew that the Prime Minister would today slap them down and whether, as a consequence, her efforts to try to stop the Prime Minister introducing secondary moderns—

Madam Speaker: Order. This question is about diversity in education. Supplementary questions must follow the substantive question.

Mr. Blunkett: With respect, Madam Speaker, I am getting there. I was asking whether the Secretary of State


was withholding her support from the Prime Minister's efforts to introduce secondary modern schools in every town. Does she agree that it would cost £2.5 billion to introduce grammar schools into 300 towns and that excluding 95 per cent. of the local population from access to those schools is entirely contrary to lifting standards and providing excellence for every child?

Mrs. Shephard: It took the hon. Gentleman a little time to get there. I would like to set the record straight. Selective schools are popular with parents. We shall continue to examine ways of meeting parental preferences that also drive up standards, as selective schools do. That is in stark contrast to the so-called policies of Opposition Members, who believe in choice and selective schools but that that choice and such schools are only for selected members of their Front Bench team. The hon. Gentleman said, and it is worth repeating,
Watch my lips: no selection.
What a pity that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was not watching at the time.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a chronic shortage of places in secondary schools, selective and non-selective, in the north of Lancashire, especially in Lancaster and Garstang? That is because the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council insists on keeping empty places in the east and centre of the county, especially in Skelmersdale and Burnley, which was mentioned earlier, when the money should be going to north Lancashire and to Lancaster and Garstang in particular.

Mrs. Shephard: It is extraordinary that parental preference should be so ignored as my hon. Friend described in her inimitable way. That is yet another example of Labour setting its face against choice.

Mrs. Mahon: Does the Secretary of State accept that, when Calderdale council says that it wants to end selection in the two grammar schools in Halifax, it does not mean that it intends to close them? Will she tell the Tory group on the council that lying about that simply debases political debate and causes anxiety to parents, children and teachers? The Labour group on the council does not intend to close the two grammar schools. Publishing rubbish that says that it will debases the debate.

Mrs. Shephard: I believe that Calderdale council is unable to close the schools as they are grant-maintained.

Religious Schools

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on religious schools and assemblies. [25088]

Mrs. Gillan: Denominational schools are popular with pupils and parents and will remain a vital part of our education system. Daily collective worship makes a major contribution to pupils' spiritual and moral development.

Mr. Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of parents in my constituency

strongly support the Christian and other moral and social values that are advanced through religious assemblies in schools? Will she join me in strongly deploring the commitment given recently by the Liberal Democrat education spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), to scrap Church schools and end religious assemblies in schools? Will my hon. Friend give me a firm commitment that she will preserve the richness of the contribution to our education system made by the Anglican, Catholic, Jewish and other faiths?

Mrs. Gillan: On behalf of the Government, I have no hesitation in giving my hon. Friend that commitment. I agree that the remarks by the Liberal Democrat spokesman on education, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), are disgraceful. The millions of voters who send their children to denominational schools should take careful note of his remarks. The intention to destroy Church schools and abolish all acts of worship in them is his stated personal agenda—disgraceful.

Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister accept that she should not necessarily believe all that she is told, either by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) or the Prime Minister? Does she accept that it is my view and that of my party—and frequently stated—that in our multicultural and multi-faith society, religious education plays a vital part in the national curriculum? Will she accept that I have never stated that I believe that we should abolish religious schools? Will she also accept that there is considerable concern nationally about the legislation on the collective act of worship—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is under attack. He has every right to speak his mind.

Mr. Foster: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the Minister also accept that members of the National Association of Head Teachers believe that the legislation is unhelpful and unworkable, and that a similar view is shared by the Secondary Heads Association? Finally, will she accept that expressing views on the current legislation on the collective act of worship is in no way an attack on the important role of religious education?

Mrs. Gillan: What I will accept is that that was the grossest act of wriggling on a hook that I have seen from a politician for a long time. The House should know that the record says that the Liberal Democrat spokesman said:
in an ideal world there would be no religious state schools. We would put a stop to the daily act of worship in an attempt to encourage all children to be educated together".
Those are his words and they are taken from a press release issued by a colleague and member of his party, who said:
The millions of voters who send their children to church schools will want to consider Mr. Foster's comments at the next election".
I think that the case is proved.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Fried agree that the daily act of worship and proper religious instruction in schools go together and that that is the most important subject in any school, because, if children do not know


how to live with one another and in a civilised, cultured and ethical society, they do not start to live and will learn nothing else?

Mrs. Gillan: I agree absolutely. My view and that of the Government is that denominational schools are vital to the British education system. They make up a third of all state schools, with more than 7,000 providing an excellent education. They are popular with parents and many have very high academic standards. Part of their popularity and success must be attributable to their denominational status. That is why I believe so firmly in them and so do the Government.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that we may live in a multicultural nation, but we are still mainly a single faith nation and, therefore, it is important that the worship in our state schools should be based on the Christian faith?

Mrs. Gillan: I have no hesitation in agreeing with what the hon. Gentleman said. I believe that collective worship is an important part of the school day. It can develop community spirit, it can promote common ethos and it can reinforce positive attitudes among pupils. I believe that collective worship should be predominantly Christian. It brings a great strength to our system of education.

Mr. John Marshall: I ask my hon. Friend to thank her colleagues for demonstrating their commitment to religious schools by granting voluntary-aided status to Hasmonean prep school, Beiz Yaakov school and Pardes House school over the past two years. Does not this demonstrate the Government's commitment to helping religious schools?

Mrs. Gillan: Yes, it does. Any voluntary group of any religious persuasion can apply to set up a new voluntary-aided or grant-maintained school. All proposals are considered on their merits, in the light of the individual circumstances of each case. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations.

Mr. Madden: First, will the Minister confirm that her Department and the Government regard Britain today as a multi-faith society? Secondly, will she confirm that it remains the policy of her Department that representatives of any faith can apply for voluntary-aided school status provided that they meet the education and the accommodation criteria? Finally, will she make urgent inquiries into the arrangements pioneered in Bradford for religion and education and promote them throughout the country? The arrangements have served the city of Bradford extremely well over the last decade or so and I believe that they would be extremely helpful in other places.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and I take it that he is inviting me to look at the religious schools in Bradford. I have no hesitation in considering his invitation.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if multi-culturalism is about defending the rights of people of other faiths to worship freely and peacefully, that is something to which we should all subscribe? However,

did my hon. Friend detect in the smearing attack on Christianity by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) the idea that multiculturalism means that the Judaeo-Christian tradition of this country is no more or less valid than any other tradition? Is that not something that she and I should reject completely?

Mrs. Gillan: I repeat: the Government are committed to the provision of religious education, to Church schools and to religious schools in this country. It is an important plank of choice and diversity. These schools deliver good education throughout the country and I hope that any potential Liberal Democrat voter will notice the attitude of the Front-Bench spokesman towards these schools.

Schools (Rochdale)

Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated backlog of repairs facing primary and secondary schools within the Rochdale education authority. [25089]

Mrs. Gillan: It is for local education authorities and school governors to assess the need for repair work in respect of school premises that they own and maintain.

Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that, since the Labour party lost control of Rochdale borough council in 1992, the new administration has made education a top priority? I thank the Government for including St. Patrick's school in the new start programme. Will the Minister confirm that either she or the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), will visit Rochdale schools to see the backlog of repairs for themselves?

Mrs. Gillan: I can see that this is my day for receiving invitations, and I shall be delighted to consider an invitation from the hon. Lady. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment has heard his invitation and will consider it. Like the hon. Lady, I was delighted that the Labour party lost control of Rochdale and I am delighted that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have put education at the top of their agenda.
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks about St. Patrick's, which is a voluntary-aided school and which will be transferring to a new site with a new building. The total cost of the project will be in excess of £1.1 million. The start of this major improvement was facilitated by a grant of £175,000 this year. I wish the school well with these major improvements.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many grant-maintained schools there are in the north-west of England. [25090]

Mr. Robin Squire: There are 96 grant-maintained schools in the north-west of England.

Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend will know, four of those grant-maintained schools are within the Ribble valley. They are excellent schools—and that does not detract


from the excellent dedication provided by other schools. Surely the important thing is that it was the choice of the parents as to whether they should be grant-maintained schools.
Will my hon. Friend give a commitment that he will continue to prioritise parental choice in this regard and that he will not allow dogma to get in the way of denying parents the final choice about whether schools should be grant-maintained, irrespective of whether they happen to come from Peckham, Sedgefield or any other part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Squire: I willingly give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he knows, since the start of this year alone, another five schools have gone GM in his region. I also give him an assurance that, in the White Paper to be published in June, we shall specifically consider ways to allow GM schools better to develop and take advantage of that state of self-governance.

Activity Centres

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost compliance assessment of the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1995. [25091]

Mr. Paice: The most recent cost-benefit assessment by the Health and Safety Executive suggests that the costs to industry will be less than £9 million at present values, spread over 10 years. A copy is in the Library.

Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that no one has lost a life in any of the activities that will be regulated under the Act except in the Lyme bay disaster, and that the Health and Safety Executive provides licences only for nuclear reactors, for ammunition dumps and for removal of asbestos? Now we are adding a licence for fell walking and archery. Is that not a priceless example of the Government over-regulating, and should not the Government refer the matter to the Deregulation Committee?

Mr. Paice: While I respect my hon. Friend's diligence in pursuing the object of deregulation, which we all share, a balance must be struck between the needs to protect children and to deregulate. Although, as he rightly says, there have been only those four tragic deaths, I hope that we do not have to wait for deaths before we legislate. Perhaps my hon. Friend should be aware that the final report of the Health and Safety Executive into the safety of outdoor activity centres reports that there were 175 reportable—that is, relatively serious—accidents in the two years before the visit. That demonstrates the need for some protection, which we have provided.

Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Minister for being so positive in the face of his hon. Friend's outrageous question. He mentioned accidents. That £9 million will go a long way towards reducing the incidence of some accidents that do take place in activity centres. Will he join me in congratulating the HSE, and others involved in drafting the final regulations, on including areas that were not included in the original considerations of the Bill, such as some of the places—such as mountainsides—where outdoor activities take place that are dangerous by their nature?

Mr. Paice: The Government set out to achieve a balance between protection and avoiding over-burdensome regulation. As the hon. Gentleman says, consultation took place; the 96-page document that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) mentioned was a consultation document. Its aim was to achieve that balance between the two objectives. We ended up with only 11 pages of regulations as a result. As the hon. Gentleman says, in certain areas we did increase the number of activities that were covered; in other areas, we chose the deregulatory route. It was a genuine consultation, and I believe that we have struck a balance.

Special Needs

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to improve job training for those with special needs. [25092]

Mr. Paice: The Government continue to provide a wide range of job training for people with special needs. They will benefit from proposals for national traineeships and new entry arrangements for young people—and from the pre-vocational and basic skills pilots in the training for work programme.

Mr. French: Will my hon. Friend accept an invitation to visit Bridge Training in Gloucester? Is he aware that, if he does so, he will find an organisation deeply dedicated to the training of special needs, with experience and understanding developed over many years, which is increasingly asked to enter into contracts that do not fully meet the requirements of special needs applicants—that is, contracts that do not take account of the fact that special needs requirements take longer to fulfil and people with special needs take longer to reach a position from which they can enter employment than others? While I recognise that the training budget is adequate overall, will my hon. Friend try to ensure that organisations such as Bridge are not put in the position of having either to cut their training programme or to operate at a loss?

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for ensuring that I was not left out of the battery of invitations that have been issued around the House this afternoon. I shall of course consider his kind offer.
I am sure that the House is aware that training contracts are a matter for individual training and enterprise councils to negotiate with training providers. As a result of the lessons that we have learnt, we have provided much greater flexibility for TECs in contracts covering special needs. We have increased the weighting in terms of payments for trainees with special needs in order to try to recognise that there are clear cost differences when dealing with special needs trainees and those who do not have such needs.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the Minister acknowledge that training opportunities designed specifically for deaf people have been cut drastically? While we wish the greatest number of people to enjoy training opportunities in mainstream provision, a significant number of deaf people are unable to do so. What more will the Minister do for them?

Mr. Paice: I have received no representations on the specific issue of deaf people. I am aware that there are special requirements for people with a number of different disabilities and special needs and that we must be precise about our language. That is why we have made further changes to our programmes, including ring-fencing a

large number of TECs this year to ensure that they devote the resources that we are making available to them to trainees with special needs. They must identify those needs in their areas and then ensure that there are sufficient contracts available to meet those needs.

Points of Order

Mr. Alan Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier this afternoon during questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson)—entirely inadvertently, I am sure—suggested to the House that the Employment Policy Institute had pronounced against the minimum wage. I assure you, Madam Speaker, and the House that the Employment Policy Institute is scrupulously impartial in political terms. It publishes papers setting forth a variety of arguments in the general debate about employment issues. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to claim that the Employment Policy Institute has come out on his side of the argument. I speak as a trustee of the institute, as is the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman).

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order, but I am sure that it is welcome as a point of information.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise the question of the behaviour of a Minister towards the House and towards hon. Members. I refer to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), and his actions concerning a refugee, Mr. Mikrea Ilin, who is due to be deported from my constituency on Friday and who is currently being held in Rochester prison.
The Under-Secretary wrote to me last night—I received the letter late last night—to say that he would not receive any representations whatsoever from anyone concerning that man, who attempted suicide following a previous attempt to deport him from this country. Is it in order for a Minister to tell another Member of Parliament that he is not prepared to receive letters, representations, faxes or telephone calls about a matter of deep concern regarding a constituent's human rights? It seems to me that the Under-Secretary is setting his face against the Parliament to which he should be accountable.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, although the hon. Gentleman certainly raises a serious and interesting matter. He will understand that I have no authority over Ministers' actions, their remarks or the

attitude that they adopt to such matters. The issue has now been drawn to the attention of those on the Government Front Bench with the relevant responsibilities and perhaps some action will be taken as a result of the hon. Gentleman's raising it on a point of order.

Mr. Don Foster: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the event of an hon. Member giving a clear assurance to the contrary, is it in order for a Minister speaking from the Dispatch Box to continue to peddle a view that the hon. Member in question has refuted? If it is in order, what protection does that hon. Member have?

Mr. John Marshall: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You act to defend Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who have raised the issue and said how wrong the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is in that particular respect.

Madam Speaker: I defended the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) when he was being shouted down by hon. Members. Any hon. Member who is a member of a minority party has every right to be heard and to express his views in the House. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to persist with his views, perhaps he will seek an Adjournment debate, introduce a ten-minute Bill or use some other method to make his views even better known.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to reinforce the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington. North (Mr. Corbyn) concerning the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Recently, that Minister refused on two occasions requests by me for meetings to discuss immigration cases. For that Under-Secretary now to refuse written representations is an extension of the barrier that he seems anxious to build between himself and hon. Members on important matters. If, on reflection, the Minister in question does not have a change of attitude, perhaps you will give a ruling, Madam Speaker—bearing it in mind that the right of hon. Members to make representations to Ministers is a basic right, but one that the Minister in question seems anxious to erode.

Madam Speaker: I will take the matter no further. I responded fully to the original point of order, and we will see how matters develop.

Association (United Kingdom, United States and Former Dominions)

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to strengthen institutions to promote economic, cultural, and political ties between the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand.
Malcolm Turnbull is the leader of the republican movement in Australia, and he defended Peter Wright in the "Spycatcher" trial. Some have even said that Mr. Turnbull might have become Australia's first President. Although I do not support his republican views—I am a royalist—some of his arguments are interesting. Similarly, although I do not suggest that Britain should leave the European Union, Malcolm Turnbull's belief that we turned our back on our natural friends and allies when we joined the European Economic Community, as it then was, is persuasive.
A few months ago, Malcolm Turnbull was quoted in The Sunday Times:
I think that was a terrible mistake for Britain. Why should you at this point in history, when technology has made distance more irrelevant than ever, suddenly choose to become a political part of Europe? Technology has made geographical proximity irrelevant and geographical proximity was the only reason for being part of Europe. Britain would have been much wiser focusing on and developing closer relations with those countries with which it really did have a lot in common in terms of language, background, human relationships and institutions. And those countries plainly were the Anglo-Saxon countries—the old Commonwealth and the USA.
I was educated for a while in America and like you, Madam Speaker, I have worked there. You were based on Capitol hill in Washington DC, working in Congress—and I worked not far away, from a base in New Haven in Connecticut, setting up and financing radio stations. As I have also worked in Europe, I have long held views similar to those of Mr. Turnbull, but with one big difference. There does not have to be a mutual exclusivity between membership of the European Union and strengthening ties with the old Commonwealth and the USA. The Government already do just that.
But I believe that we are reaching a crossroads in our nation's history. Our country cannot survive and prosper on its own. We have always needed to be part of a trading bloc. In the 18th and 19th centuries, that bloc was the British empire. People who now think that we can go it alone live in an economic cloud cuckoo land. But the crossroads are fast approaching as a confluence of technology and dissatisfaction with existing trading blocs fast approach each other. That creates a window of opportunity and an unlocking door to a future of mutual prosperity that this nation must not miss lest future generations rightly condemn our short-sightedness at the obvious and our failure of stewardship of our country.
Before I speak of the confluence of ways and the unlocking door, I shall state the obvious and the not so obvious about Britain, Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand. We all share a common language. We may speak in different dialects, but there is a greater diversity in the British Isles than between London and any state in the United States. We all share a common heritage. The kings and queens of England are still taught in Brighton near Melbourne and in Brighton near New York, even if not in Labour-controlled Brighton in Sussex.
We all share a common legal system. Do we all realise how important that is to British trade? Can that be why the US is still the biggest holder of investments in the United Kingdom and why the UK is still the biggest holder of investments in the US? Is not it startling that despite America having won its independence back in 1783, its independent legal system developed in parallel with our own after all those years? We still share a common basis in law. Our sense of natural justice is similar to that in America and in the old Commonwealth. Wittgenstein was right to illuminate the immutability between language and cognition and it is well demonstrated by our common jurisprudence.
We all share common economic cycles. While Britain and America enjoy growth, continental Europe wallows in recession. Let us pray that France and Germany's slump does not pull us down too. We all share a common state of economic development. There is no need for cohesion funds, huge fund flows or tides of immigration from one nation to another. We all share a view that we should not subsidise industries, such as airlines that should stand on their own two wheels.
We all share relatively wealthy populations. Britain, the US and the old Commonwealth combined have a population of around 356 million, slightly less than the European Union population of 369 million. But whereas the gross national product of the European Union is $7,280,975 million, that of the United Kingdom, the United States and the old Commonwealth is in excess of $8,274,500 million.
Finally, we all share a common culture bound together by a common history. Our nations' folk memories are not scarred by recent lesions caused by war and invasion. No need is felt to concede the nation state in order to seek the will-o'-the-wisp of peace for all time.
But what of the confluence of circumstances, which I mentioned earlier, which creates the unlocking door that we should now seek to push ajar? There are two aspects to that confluence.
First, the nature of trade has altered over the years. In extremis, we no longer export locomotives: we export microchips and software. We no longer export girder bridges: we export financial services, although not enough to Europe, where some borders are not yet open to the City of London. In 1970, 9 per cent. of our import costs were insurance and freight. In 1994, that figure had reduced to 2 per cent., and the trend continues downwards.
Distance is no longer the object in international trade. In my own experience, the selling price in Copenhagen of a broadcast console made in Britain is higher than the selling price in Auckland. The local market determines the price, not the distance of the goods travelled. I do not have to remind hon. Members that telephoning distant destinations has been transformed since the recent laying of trans-world fibre-optic cables. There is no more satellite delay or echo. Calling Seattle is as clear as calling Lichfield.
Secondly, there has been a more fundamental change. For the first time in its 220-year history, the United States is no longer isolationist. It has recognised the need to form strategic trading alliances, and that has not happened before. It has joined the North American Free Trade Agreement, of which Canada is also a member. Yet Canada and the United States find that they are exporting jobs to and importing finished goods from Mexico.


Australia and New Zealand trade with the Pacific rim, as we do. Yet Australia and New Zealand also export jobs to and import finished goods from countries such as Vietnam, Taiwan and South Korea. Those countries assumed wrongly that trading blocs must consist of geographically close nations, not economically and culturally close nations. They are beginning to recognise with growing unease that other more compatible partners may need to be sought.
Surely whether one enters into a marriage partnership, a business partnership or a geopolitical trading partnership, if the partnership is to endure, it must be more than merely a marriage of convenience. My Bill recognises today's reality and future certainty.
The world is going through a time of change. It is unlikely, but the general agreement on tariffs and trade may make all trading blocs unnecessary. But if no such agreement is reached, Britain will need to keep open all its many options. The Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade have rightly spoken time and again of the need for an international view.
The Bill recognises that Britain trades with the world, that no alliances are for ever, that Britain cannot be a little England and needs geopolitical trading partners, that our partners need to be compatible and that we should never allow Britain to be boxed in or to be without options. The Bill will strengthen the already excellent work undertaken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office through its own initiatives and participation in the work of international organisations including GATT, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Group of Seven.

Mr. Donald Anderson: When I entered the Chamber and read the notice of motion for the first time, I thought to myself, "Who could possibly be against it?" It read like apple pie and motherhood. One would think that there would be a unanimous House in favour of it. Then I began to notice one or two hints in what the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) was saying. There was a certain sub-text and a certain linkage with yesterday's ten-minute Bill. I began to understand that perhaps the Bill before the House is not all that it appears to be.
The hon. Gentleman says that we must adjust to today's reality. We are not, I hope, against that. He argued that we should keep our options open. I suppose that no one could be wholly against that. He quoted Mr. Turnbull, who is not his ally on other matters. He quoted also Wittgenstein, and who can be against Wittgenstein?
In my judgment, the real sub-text and motive was an essay in nostalgia. Essentially, it was an essay in escapism. The key theme was that there is an alternative to our linkage with our natural allies within the European Union, involving Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand. There is, of course, a basic substratum of co-operation and of marriage of the heart with all those countries. Most of us have family in most, if not all of them. There is the binding of common law and of language, which in most instances brings us together.
The essential problem in looking to Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand as an alternative to

the EU is clearly that they are not options, in spite of important emotional and practical areas of co-operation. The key fallacy in the hon. Gentleman's approach is that it takes two to tango. History tells us, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) knows only too well, that our country has been littered with attempts to escape from its destiny.
During the late 1950s, there was the attempt by the then Mr. Maudling to find an alternative to the treaty of Rome. We were labouring under the illusion created by Sir Anthony Eden in about 1956, that there were the three circles of America, the Commonwealth and the wider world, and that Britain was at the centre of those three concentric circles. We had the Maudling essay in escapism and the European Free Trade Association, which was built up as an alternative. Various other schemes were peddled in the 1960s, notably the North American Free Trade Agreement, associated with Senator Jacob Javits.
The basic problem with all those options was not only that the proposed partners were not terribly interested in the project, but that, basically, it ran against the facts and, notably, the pattern of trade. I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider the way in which our trade pattern has moved from when 40 per cent. of our external trade was with Commonwealth countries to now, when more than 50 per cent. of it is with members of the European Union, a dynamic organisation, at whose door other countries are knocking hard. Countries are trying not to leave the EU or to find an alternative, but to join because they know that, despite all its problems, it is a dynamic organisation.
When we confirmed our membership of the European Union in 1975 after the referendum, we joined not a static Europe, but a Europe that was developing. However much Conservative Members seek to avoid that, the dynamism remains, so, effectively, the apparently anodyne motion must be seen in the context of the agonies of the Conservative party—the escapism that we saw in respect of the European Court of Justice.
That is why we in Britain are not punching our weight in Europe and why, in a Europe that needs alliance-building that is based on partnership, we are increasingly pushed to the side, to the detriment of our interests. Such essays in nostalgia and escapism, however felicitously phrased, are not only contrary to our interests, but avoid the real choices facing the country.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Fabricant, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Sir John Hannam, Sir Michael Spicer, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. David Alton, Mr. John Butcher, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. David Martin, Mr. James Pawsey and Mr. John Wilkinson.

ASSOCIATION (UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES AND FORMER DOMINIONS)

Mr. Michael Fabricant accordingly presented a Bill to strengthen institutions to promote economic, cultural, and political ties between the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

Orders of the Day — Family Law Bill [Lords]

(Clauses Nos. 5 and 7 and any new Clauses or new Schedules appearing on the Order Paper not later than Monday 1st April and relating to the circumstances in which a marriage may be taken to have broken down irretrievably or in which a divorce order or a separation order may be made by the Court, or to the period for reflection and consideration.)

Considered in Committee.

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 5

MARITAL BREAKDOWN

Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 2, after '(1) ', insert
'For the purposes of an application for a separation order'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: No. 6, in page 3, line 22, at end insert—
'.—(2A) If the parties have entered into an agreement, following counselling by a body approved for the purposes of this section by the Lord Chancellor, not to make a statement unless each of them has sought further counselling (either from that body or from any other such body), any statement made by either of the parties, or by both of them, is to be disregarded unless the agreement has been complied with within the period of three months ending with the date on which the statement is made.'.
No. 20, in page 3, line 27, after 'year', insert
'(or such further period as shall appear to the Court in all circumstances to be just) '.
Clause 5 stand part.
New clause 1—Grounds for divorce—
'.—(1) The court hearing an application for a divorce order shall hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably if, but only if, the applicant has made a statement that he believes that the marriage has broken down and has satisfied the court of one or more of the following facts—

(a) that the other party has committed adultery and the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least one year;
(b) that the other party has behaved in an intolerable way and the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least one year;
(c) that the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years and the other party consents to a divorce order being made;
(d) that the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least five years.
(2) In relation to an application for a divorce order "continuous period", in subsection (I), means a continuous period ending immediately before the application is made.'.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor's Department for the considerable help that it has given us in drafting the amendments, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm, when he sums up, that the amendments' effect is simply to leave the present law

as it is, except to ban quickie divorces of under one year. We believe that it is important to give the House an opportunity to vote on such a matter.
The amendments may look fairly complex to hon. Members who seek to understand them, but, as I have said, we took considerable advice. Consequential amendments may be necessary on Report if the Committee votes for these amendments in principle at 7 pm.
The backdrop for this important debate is the marital breakdown crisis. Each year, 158,000 marriages—41 per cent.—end in divorce. Moreover, there is huge and mounting evidence, which I am sure would convince anyone, that children are suffering as a result of the divorce epidemic: children of divorced parents tend to be worse educated, more likely to become unemployed and less likely to be able to sustain stable marriages themselves.
Many of us feel that what is needed is not a Bill to allow easier or slicker divorces, but a campaign in favour of marriage; but we can debate that on another occasion. This afternoon, we are simply debating whether we should retain the requirement either to give a reason for wanting a divorce or to allege fault.
Those who support the Bill and oppose my amendments say that the present law simply does not work—that it does not stop divorces, but makes matters far worse. We claim that quickie divorces are to blame for much of the problem, but the supporters of the Bill argue that the present law breeds acrimony, and that, if there is conflict in a marriage, it is better for the partners to obtain a quick and easy divorce than to stay together. They say that they want to "humanise" the whole process.
All those arguments are very beguiling; that is why many hon. Members support the concept of no-fault divorce. However, many of the same arguments were adduced back in 1969 in California, where, for the first time in American history—until then, American law had been very similar to our law—the concept of no-fault divorce was introduced by Governor Reagan. At that time, there was a "happy divorce" movement in California. All the arguments that I have just mentioned about the present law were used then to persuade Governor Reagan and his colleagues to introduce no-fault divorce, and his example was followed in all 50 states of the Union.
Interestingly, just when we are thinking of copying Governor Reagan's legislation, there is enormous controversy in the United States about no-fault divorce. Many states are examining the position, and at least six have produced Bills seeking to repeal the no-fault divorce legislation. I shall not quote from obvious sources, although I could: there has been considerable criticism of no-fault divorce by America's right wing.
A Democrat-based foundation, the Council on Families in America, has submitted a report entitled "Marriage in America". The report, headed "The Failed Revolution", states:
The evidence of failure is overwhelming. The divorce revolution—by which we mean the steady displacement of a marriage culture by a culture of divorce and unwed parenthood—has created terrible hardships for children. It has generated poverty within families. It has burdened us with unsupportable social costs. It has failed to deliver on its promise of greater adult happiness and better relationships between men and women.


Hillary Clinton, who is not noted as a right-wing guru, has written:
for much of the 1970s and 1980s, many believed that a bad marriage was worse than a good divorce. Now, however, we know that children bear the brunt of failed marriages and divorce. Divorce has become too easy because of permissive laws and attitudes.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that, every time people in this country have tried to "reform divorce", as they call it, they have always said that it will lead to fewer divorces, but that on every occasion it has led to more divorces?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is correct, which is why we should consider these matters very carefully—it is a very risky business.
The divorce rate doubled within two years after we passed the last divorce legislation, in 1969. I want to be fair to those who supported that legislation. Many of them argued that there was a backlog of cases, or that there may have been other reasons that contributed to the doubling of the number of divorces; but there was a doubling in the number of divorces. In America, since the introduction of no-fault divorces, there has been a 20 per cent. increase in the divorce rate.

Sir Anthony Grant: That fact has been demonstrated by research not only in America but in this country—notably in Cambridge, by a very learned professor of criminology. He produced a report that showed very clearly that juvenile delinquency stems from causes at a very much earlier stage, and primarily in cases in which there has been a broken family.

Mr. Leigh: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that both sides of the argument accept the catastrophic effect of divorce on children. Later in my speech, I might quote a study that demonstrates that there is mounting evidence that the catastrophic effect on children is not produced so much by acrimony in the marriage or even by the divorce proceedings, as by the divorce itself—because one parent is absent permanently from the matrimonial home.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because, although I shall not come to the same conclusion as he does, I accept what he has just said is the key to the issue. The fact is that divorce produces all the consequences he has just mentioned.
As a former divorce lawyer, I do not understand why my hon. Friend thinks that, if one approaches a marriage in crisis or a marriage that is effectively over and produces "a fault"—whether it is an act of adultery, an act of unreasonable behaviour or an act of desertion—it will reinforce marriage. How on earth will merely producing "a fault" and saying that it is the instrument of dissolution reinforce marriage? I do not understand that thinking, and it rebels completely against all the experience I gained when I was helping people to come to terms with the consequences of divorce.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall deal with his points in some detail, because they are, of course, central to our arguments.
We do not claim that divorce legislation or Parliament can stop people getting divorced, but one answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is that, to divorce under current legislation—as he well knows as a former divorce lawyer—one does not need to allege fault. There can be a separation, and one can achieve a divorce with no fault and no consent after five years, or with no fault and consent after two years.
The recent, much publicised divorce of the Duke and Duchess of York was based not on a quickie divorce but on a two-year separation. They remain, as we know, the best of friends after their divorce. I do not think that that divorce, which occurred under current legislation, has contributed to acrimony or bitterness or affected their children.
The answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge is that, while Parliament cannot stop people getting divorced, it can lay down a moral cornerstone or a moral foundation for the nation. It can provide some guidance. We believe that that is what the existing law does, and that is why we believe that it should be retained.

Mr. David Chidgey: I take the hon. Gentleman back to the figures he quoted about the doubling of the divorce rate after the relaxation of divorce law. Could he contrast that with any statistics on changes in the number of couples who separated, either legally or through some less formal arrangement, and tell us whether the number of separations decreased as the number of divorces increased? Separation and divorce cannot be the same thing.

Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not understand the point he is making, and I do not think that it is germane to the argument. I do not want to lengthen this debate over statistics, because we know that they can prove anything. As we all know, however, it is undeniable that divorce has dramatically increased in this country, and that we have more divorces than any other nation in Europe. I and those who share my views argue that there is a crisis. We may not be able to stop people getting divorced, but do we want to make divorce even easier, given the state we are in?
I was referring to the American experience. Why should we look into the crystal ball or examine statistics when we can read the book? The book is open in front of us—the American experience is there for us to see.

Ms Jean Corston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leigh: I shall finish this point and then give way.
Six American states now have Bills before their legislatures that would repeal no-fault divorce. They are Oklahoma, Michigan, Iowa, Idaho, Alabama and Minnesota. The matter is also under discussion in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Georgia.

Ms Corston: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that the purpose of the amendment is to make divorce harder, or at least not to make it easier than it is now. Those of us who have worked as family lawyers know that, under the present divorce law, often when clients ask how they can get divorced, they are told that they have to wait two years to show that they can no longer live together and that the


marriage has irretrievably broken down. They often say that that is too long, and ask whether they can get a divorce more quickly.
The answer is that they could allege adultery or unreasonable behaviour and be divorced within six months. The Bill is going to make divorce harder, and make people think about it more thoroughly than they do when they can allege fault.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Lady is making my point. That is the problem with the present divorce legislation. The fact that people can within three or four months obtain a divorce based on fault or allegations of unreasonable behaviour or adultery, means that divorce lawyers often advise them to make such allegations. That is what is wrong with the existing divorce law, and it is why we fully support Ministers who want to ban divorce being obtainable in under a year. The hon. Lady makes my point. I am not in favour of quickie divorces.

Sir David Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with the existing system is that, as soon as a case gets into the hands of solicitors, clients get into a confrontational situation? It is that situation which poisons the atmosphere and makes it worse for the children and harder to reach a settlement. Would it not be much better to avoid confrontation and see where a reconciliation process leads, without the usual tension and crisis?

Mr. Leigh: We all agree, and, although the Opposition spokesman seeks to amend it, the Bill as drafted unfortunately gives no time for reconciliation. It provides for a year's waiting period, but that is a period in which there can be mediation over the division of assets and issues affecting the children. The Bill does not provide time for reconciliation, which we want to build into it. Under the existing legislation, lawyers advise potential clients that the way to get a quick divorce is to allege fault. I agree with my hon. Friend that that breeds acrimony.
My argument is that it is wrong that someone who has been married for a considerable time should not have to be given any reason for the dissolution of the marriage, and that that person's partner is being granted a divorce on demand. Is that fair? That is the question that the Committee must consider very carefully.

Mr. Stephen Timms: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment does not remove the problem that there will still be an incentive to make an allegation of fault—possibly a fictitious one—because there will still be the possibility of obtaining divorce more quickly that way?

Mr. Leigh: Not, of course, if the Committee accepted my subsequent amendment at 10 pm—that is the simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
Why will the Bill not work? Why will it not achieve the objectives in which we all believe?

Mr. Win Griffiths: I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about America. From all the briefing material that we have been sent, I understand that several other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, have no-fault

legislation. Can he tell us a little about what happened to divorce rates in those countries following the introduction of no-fault?

Mr. Leigh: Yes, I can. There is some dispute about Australia, because the rate went up considerably and then seemed to settle down, but it seemed to increase by about 11 per cent.
Opposition Members might think that they must pass the Bill unamended because acrimony is so bad. They should not be under any illusion that the Bill will not lead to more divorce—it will; it will make divorce easier. In considering how to vote at 7 o'clock, hon. Members should consider very carefully which is more damaging to society—the fact of divorce or supposed acrimony in the divorce process. The Bill's main purpose is to get rid of acrimony, but of course the truth is that it will not.
Last year, there were only five divorce trials in this country. Most divorces are based on petition, and one obtains one's divorce by post. There were, of course, a huge number of trials about very acrimonious disputes over division of property and children, and they will go on.
Whatever the Bill says, whatever its worthy arguments for mediation, one or other partner will be advised by their lawyer either of their rights or that the lawyer should be present at the mediation process, so such legal disputes will continue. The Bill is therefore addressing the wrong target. In Scotland, there is less acrimony, because assets accrued through marriage are divided 50-50. In our system in England, the courts are given almost complete discretion. That is what breeds so much acrimony. We are, first, not dealing with the acrimony issue, and, secondly, sending out the wrong message.
There is another point on acrimony. What about the bitterness of the injured party if no-fault divorces were introduced? Occasionally there are injured parties. We are not always equally to blame in life, although often we are partly to blame. What about the bitterness, the feelings of rejection and the denial of rights of the injured parties to have their day, even on a divorce petition? Those things are being swept away by the Bill, which is very dangerous.
It is therefore not surprising that the Bill is enormously controversial, right across the political parties. Not only Conservative Members feel strongly about it. Norman Dennis, a respected Labour party supporter and academic, said in his book "English Ethical Socialism":
The institution of marriage protects children. Generations of children will not welcome an Act which sends out the message that the sexual convenience of adults is of paramount importance.
Many ex-Labour Ministers in the House of Lords supported my noble Friend Baroness Young in the amendments she tabled.
There have been a number of academic studies on the matter. The Exeter study, for instance, says on page 55:
The most significant factor of those examined was the reordering of the family—the loss of a parent on one or more occasions—rather than the presence of serious conflict or violence. That was most closely associated with children's poorer outcomes as measured".
The academic world, politicians, and lawyers themselves are divided on the Bill.
If the Bill were so obviously needed, why has the Scottish Law Commission rejected it out of hand? A jurisdiction not so very different from our own has


rejected no-fault divorce. There is not even any overwhelming evidence of public support for the Bill. A MORI poll conducted by the Lord Chancellor's Department showed that 60 per cent. of the public reject divorce based on the unilateral demand of one party.

Mr. John Patten: Has my hon. Friend noticed that not one Scottish or Northern Irish Member has spoken in this place in favour of the legislation?

Mr. Leigh: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. What he says is not surprising, because, in Scotland, 63 per cent. of divorces take between two and five years, and in Northern Ireland, 75 per cent. of divorces take between two and five years. This is largely an English problem.
Quickie divorce is not just the creation of Parliament. It was the creation of the Lord Chancellor's Department in 1977, when the period between decree nisi and decree absolute was cut from six months to six weeks. The Department, although not alone, has to a great extent created the problem of quickie divorces. My answer, therefore, to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and to others who have intervened is that we should get rid of quickie divorces.

Sir David Mitchell: Surely, by the time a decree nisi has been granted, a person is effectively divorced, because the whole thing has broken up. The fact that one shortens the time between decree nisi and decree absolute does not affect the fact that the family has come to an end in terms of the operation of normal family life.

Mr. Leigh: The point that my hon. Friend is missing is this—and the hon. Member for Bristol, East made this clear from her own experience. When one is contemplating divorce, one's lawyer will advise one, that if one wants to get divorced within three months and does not want to wait two years, the only way in which to do so is to make allegations. That is what is wrong with the present system.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I too was a divorce lawyer. I often found that a middle-aged lady would come to our chambers who had loyally supported her husband for many years by helping him to get on in his industrial life and by bringing up his children. In fact, she had done everything she could. Her one crime was that she had become middle-aged, fat and possibly a little dull. Her husband, therefore, wanted a shiny new model. In what way has such a woman ever committed a fault? As my hon. Friend said, she would feel bitter if she were just discarded like an old glove with no good reason being given.

Mr. Leigh: I understand that my hon. Friend has been very happily married for a long time. She is a beacon and an example to us all.
Another answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell), which may be more germane to the second debate, is that if, under the

Bill as unamended, we reduce the time to one year, people will have to settle everything within one year. Under present legislation, after the decree nisi, one can go on talking and arguing about ancillaries. Lawyers refer to disputes over children and property as ancillaries. However, that is another argument, which we can have after 7 o'clock.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I do not want to intervene at length during my hon. Friend's argument, because it is important that he should have the opportunity to develop it. However, it would be wrong if the Committee were of the view that 12 months is the period during which arrangements in relation to finance and property must be concluded. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill permits that period to be extended by up to two years.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he makes the point that I want to make, especially forcefully, in the second debate. Under the Bill, people will not be required to settle everything within 12 months but I suspect that that will become the expectation. Under schedule 1, if one goes to the court and argues that one party is being obstructive—one does not have to prove that—the court can override the objections of the other party. That is, of course, more substantially a matter for the second debate.
However, that point is why we say that, where there is a dispute, where children are involved or where there are difficulties, the period should certainly be extended beyond 12 months. There should be a difference between how quickly a person obtains a divorce if there is consent and no children, and how quickly a divorce is obtained if there is a dispute or if there are children. My hon. Friend the Minister is not being entirely fair.

Mr. Richard Tracey: May I draw my hon. Friend out a little on the distinction between the view of the Scottish Law Commission and the advice of the English Law Commission? It is interesting that Scotland has not decided to go down the road that is proposed in the Bill. I believe that my hon. Friend said that public opinion in England was against the line taken in the Bill. Does that mean that the English law commissioners totally ignored the views of our people?

Mr. Leigh: It is not one of the duties of the English Law Commission to consider public opinion. As my hon. Friends and I will argue, one of the problems with the Bill is summed up by the question: who has been calling for it? Have our constituents been writing to us in droves asking for it? Was it in the Conservative party manifesto? Or was it driven by lawyers sitting in the Law Commission—one of whom, who is now a High Court judge, has questioned the very institution of marriage?
Should we in this Parliament make laws based on what the Law Commission advises, or laws based on our own experience and on common sense, and on what our constituents tell us is necessary? Every opinion poll tells us that our constituents support the institution of marriage, and do not want divorce to be made easier.

Dame Angela Rumbold: Will my hon. Friend continue along that line? Considering public opinion, and reading the letters that I have had


from my constituents, it seems to me that the institution of marriage is greatly valued, that it is regarded as a contract made between two people, partly for their mutual enjoyment but also for the procreation of children, with the intention that the children will be brought up within that marriage.
It therefore seems an odd idea to try to undermine in any way the moral obligation that the two people feel towards each other and the basic contract that they make between themselves. I should have thought that we would want to concentrate our efforts on trying to ensure that that contract was made more rather than less solid, and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees with me.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and also for what Cardinal Hume said at the end of last week—that, as a society, we must put far more emphasis on preparation for marriage. I do not know whether hon. Members know that, at a civil marriage ceremony in a register office, there is no requirement to make any promises whatever about the long-term stability of a marriage.
Every society and every culture, throughout history, has recognised that the best way to bring up children is in a secure and stable marriage. That is why every society and every religion in the world envelops the marriage ceremony with solemn vows. It is recognised that human nature is weak; that is why we are required to make those vows, to buttress our determination to stay together. Is the message that we want to give to the nation as a whole the idea that those vows mean nothing, and that, on the demand of just one partner, they can be broken?

Dr. Robert Spink: rose—

Mr. Chidgey: rose—

Mr. Leigh: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend may remember that, in a previous debate, I called for marriage to be made harder, with the Churches leading the way in preparing people for marriage, rather than for divorce to be made easier. As for public opinion, is my hon. Friend aware that a MORI poll in 1993 showed that 56 per cent. of people who wanted a change in that area of the law wanted to see divorce made harder?

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and now I shall give way to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).

Mr. Chidgey: May I draw the hon. Gentleman back to a comment made a few moments ago and supported by several of his hon. Friends, concerning the case of injured parties who have suffered considerably through divorce through no fault of their own and who, as the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) explained, are left bereft? That is a real problem, and it is important to realise that either partner may be in that situation, when a divorce of which he or she had no foreknowledge nor any wish to be part of, is forced upon him or her. However, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain to the House how his amendment would overcome that problem.

Mr. Leigh: If someone is not at fault, the present law makes adequate provision. People simply have to wait two

years, or, if there is no consent, five years. If one is the injured party, one will not be able to stop the divorce. We accept that; we cannot prevent people from getting divorced. But at least the fault of the other party—whether that be adultery, desertion, unreasonable behaviour or, in the words of my new clause, "intolerable" behaviour—will be on the divorce petition, and in that sense the injured party will have had his or her day in court.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Much has been said about the situation in Scotland, and it is time that a Scottish voice was heard. I will be in the Lobby tonight with my hon. Friend. However, if there were a Scottish Assembly, I would be able to go into the Lobby with him to judge English law, but if there were a change of heart in Scotland, I would not be able to take part in the debate.

Mr. Leigh: That is interesting, but I had better not be beguiled down that path.

Mr. David Alton: I support the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I welcome his amendments. Is he heartened not only by the shift in public opinion that has been alluded to but by the fact that commentators such as Ruth Deech and Melanie Phillips, who come from a very different part of the political spectrum to him, have argued strongly against the abolition of fault? They recognise, as many of us do, that it is absurd to pretend that we can remove fault by Act of Parliament. There will continue to be fault; surely redress is the issue.
If people feel that they cannot get redress in law and can be divorced on demand against their wishes, the Bill will have brought an unacceptable principle into British law. Does he accept that the children who are littered throughout our broken-hearted communities are the casualties of divorce? There are 750,000 children who no longer have access to their fathers. The collapse of family life is one of the major causes of our social problems.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman presses his point well. Ruth Deech has written penetrating articles and made speeches on that subject.
I was advising the Committee about what we can do. First, we can get rid of quickie divorces. Secondly—this is built into the amendments—we should replace the subjective test of unreasonable behaviour with the more objective test of intolerable behaviour. We were advised to put that in by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Thirdly, we should consider changes to court procedures. We cannot, of course, resurrect divorce trials, but at least judges should be allowed under judges' and court rules to question affidavits. If there is an open-and-shut case of fault, it is absurd that the judge should not be allowed to consider it at all.
Above all, we should not abolish the right of people to demand reasons for their marriages being terminated. Clause 1 states that the objective is
to promote as good a continuing relationship between the parties and any children affected as is possible in the circumstances".

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am slightly at a loss to know what the benefit of fault is, except in the relatively small number of cases in which one party is manifestly not at fault. That is difficult to establish. If the


party that is at fault got a less generous settlement than if that party had not been at fault, it would raise all sorts of questions about which parent should have custody of the children. Presumably the settlement should go mainly to the parent with the children. I am not certain what the establishment of fault secures.

Mr. Leigh: I can give my hon. Friend a good reason. It is not because we want to say, "You're guilty, you should admit it." We do not want to build up bitterness in marriages. It sometimes serves a purpose to say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong." We all know that from our personal relationships. If I broke the rules of the House and the Chairman of Ways and Means called me to order, he would expect me to apologise, and we could then move on.
If we try to solve problems on the basis of no pain, no shame and no apology, it can make it even harder to start again and rebuild a relationship. If our present fault or reason-based divorce legislation is so bad and is creating all this acrimony, why, every year, do 20,000 to 30,000 couples who have embarked on the process change their minds? Perhaps our present process helps many people to resolve their difficulties to some extent, and decide that they must try to make their marriages work.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend said that everyone is entitled to know, in a legal context, why their marriage has failed. Does he accept that marriages do not fail because of an act of adultery, desertion or unreasonable behaviour, but because, for a variety of reasons, they simply will not work any longer? The law as an instrument is capable of recognising that fact, but is incapable of carrying out the sort of moral audit which we might want in an ideal world but which, in the reality of a law court, is completely impossible.

Mr. Leigh: That is my hon. Friend's view and the view of people who want to promote no-fault divorce—they all say that it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Mr. Nicholls: It is not.

Mr. Leigh: It is to a certain extent. In fact, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, a former president of the family law division, who opposes no-fault divorce and spoke eloquently in the other place, pointed out that in his experience—he is a practitioner in the field—most divorces result mainly from the fault of one party. My hon. Friend is right: there may be circumstances that lead up to that fault, but that former president of the family law division recognises that fault should be acknowledged in divorce proceedings.

Mr. Tim Devlin: There seems to be a fundamental fallacy in my hon. Friend's proposal. Present law is not based on fault—one is granted a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. That is evidenced in one of five ways, but none of those is grounds for divorce. At the moment, we have no-fault divorce.

Mr. Leigh: That is a semantic point, if I may say so. Under existing legislation, of course irretrievable

breakdown is the ground for divorce, but one has to give a reason or allege a fault, or there has to have been a separation. Under the unamended Bill, one does not have to give a reason—it is divorce on demand. One proves irretrievable breakdown of a marriage by saying, "I divorce you." After one year, one can obtain a divorce without giving a reason.

Sir Michael Neubert: Is not the problem the fact that the Bill, this debate and even my hon. Friend's speech in moving his amendment, concentrate on the point of marriage breakdown, whereas, if we are to avoid the terrible crisis of divorce in such high numbers that he has described, we must go back to the original commitment? Is not the removal of fault the equivalent to saying that there is no contract, and therefore that there can be no breach of contract? Is not my hon. Friend trying to establish once again the commitment that comes at the start of a marriage and which will be so much more important later in the event of difficulties?

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he has put his finger on it. We all accept that the marriage contract should be the most solemn contract that one makes in one's life. It should be uniquely unbreakable. In fact, it will be uniquely breakable. In any other contract, one has to allege a fault. As one of my hon. Friends said on Second Reading, if one buys a television set and wants to sell it and get one's money back, one alleges a fault. In this, the most important contract of all, one has to allege nothing. One simply says that the marriage is over. None of us thinks that that is the way to proceed.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Does my hon. Friend accept that, under the present proposals, if a couple get married on Saturday, and if, on the same day, they take out a finance agreement for 24 months, they have a firmer commitment to that agreement to purchase than they have to the marriage that they are embarking on, which is nonsense?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman. He talked about a contract and a breach of contract. In our civil courts, judges are regularly able, knowing the law, to state whether there has been a breach of contract in a case. For example, in an industrial accident, a personal injury accident or an accident in which someone has been run down, judges are able to say who is responsible and whether there has been contributory negligence. The question is whether, in a short hearing, a judge is capable of ascertaining whether fault in the lifetime of a marriage is apportioned 50:50, 60:40 or 75:25, and, secondly, whether any proper public purpose is served by that attempt.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished lawyer, and, as he well knows, that is precisely why the Divorce Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was introduced in 1968, and why we have only four or five divorce trials every year. We are not saying that we can or should return to the days of the full-blown divorce trials that we saw in the 1930s—we realise that we cannot do that, whatever our private opinion about divorce and the sanctity of marriage may be.
We are saying that a general public understanding and consciousness is underwritten by the existing law, that, if people want to get a divorce, the State will not stop them and they will get their divorce, but that marriage is for life, and that, if people are going to get a divorce it has to be based on separation of more than two years, on fault, on adultery or whatever. It serves a purpose. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not seeking to return to the old divorce legislation that operated before 1968. We realise that we cannot do that, whatever our private view may be.
Hon. Members have been patient, and I hope that they understand that I have had to give way to the hon. Members who wished to intervene. I shall now draw my remarks to a conclusion.
What sort of message do we want to send to young people? Do we want to send out the message that solemn promises, often made in a religious context, do not matter? Do we want to say that desertion does not matter? Do we want to say that adultery is not reprehensible? Are we saying that the law does not influence behaviour?
Do we deny that the public have a right to express a point of view? Do we deny that this is a solemn moment in our history, because, for the best part of 2,000 years, our law in this area has been based on our Judaeo-Christian inheritance? I believe that there was no-fault divorce in Roman times. However, in the past 2,000 years, the divorce law has been based on that Judaeo-Christian inheritance. This afternoon, do we wish to sweep that all away?

The Chairman: I remind hon. Members that with this amendment the Committee is considering amendments Nos. 6 and 20, and new clause 1.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: My amendment is amendment No. 6, which states:
Clause 5, page 3, line 22, at end insert—
—(2A) If the parties have entered into an agreement, following counselling by a body approved for the purposes of this section by the Lord Chancellor, not to make a statement unless each of them has sought further counselling (either from that body or from any other such body), any statement made by either of the parties, or by both of them, is to be disregarded unless the agreement has been complied with within the period of three months ending with the date on which the statement is made.
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor's Department and to parliamentary counsel for helping me draft my amendment. I puzzled long and hard over the question whether counselling, reconciliation and attempts to save a marriage can have any part in the divorce process. They have precious little to do with this Bill. If one party believes that the marriage could be saved and wishes to save it, provision is effectively limited to the giving of information and does not extend to counselling, to the financing of counselling or to support of it in any way.
There are people who will use any provision out of malice to delay or to refuse divorce. There are other people who believe, out of love and a sense of reality—perhaps a greater sense of reality than their partner—that the marriage can be saved and they want to make every effort to do so, even while their partner is pursuing the divorce process. Counselling, where people have no wish to be counselled, is futile. Any requirement for counselling may rapidly become a dead letter, as indeed

the requirement to give information on counselling has done in previous legislation since the Divorce Reform Act 1969.
The amendment caters for people who have made a commitment not only to their marriage partner but to seek help to maintain the marriage if it comes under strain. They may wish to seek help from the community. The amendment opens the way to serious preparation for marriage and support to maintain the marriage during its course.
At present, a conscientious clergyman will meet a couple for two or three sessions in preparation for a marriage, but his or her resources, and the resources of the registrar and the register office, are extremely limited. Properly resourced and supported, marriage preparation sessions may become a highly popular institution. People are required to pay fees for various purposes when they marry, and they incur much heavier expenses at their weddings in a great many cases. A modest fee for marriage preparation and continuing support would not be an objectionable imposition.
A well-managed counselling organisation would keep in touch with couples throughout their married life, as a properly functioning church does with couples who have been married in that church, and would be there to give help if at any time during the marriage it were called on to do so to maintain the marriage.
In making an agreement first to seek counselling at the time of marriage or during its course when there are no problems, the couple can accept that, in the last resort, the court will require them to seek further counselling before they seek divorce under the provisions of the amendment. The divorce process will not be affected, but such an arrangement would work on the fortunes of a marriage at an earlier stage, preventing it from sliding into irretrievable breakdown.
One of the Bill's difficulties is that its sponsors see only the fact of marriage and its breakdown. They do not witness the increasing strains that gradually lead to the breakdown of marriage, and the thousand and one times when it is possible to budge it back or it may slide further forward. It is in that constant help in maintaining the marriage that sensitive counselling has a role.
Some years ago, the Church of England called for the introduction of two types of marriage—one for those who wished to make a lifelong commitment and another for those who would qualify that commitment in various ways. Rightly or wrongly, the Church decided against it, on the grounds that, understandably, it did not wish to detract from commitment in any marriage.
However, the amendment does not seek to set up two types of marriage. It recognises the divorce law and it sets up a reservation, before that divorce law can take effect, that counselling will be sought.
If it is argued that the provision belongs in a marriage Bill, not a divorce Bill, that is not the choice of the House. Many of us feel that, indeed, a commission on marriage and a Bill on marriage is the only context in which a Law Commission report should have been pursued on divorce law reform. Marriage and divorce cannot be treated separately in law in our society. There is very little in the Bill as it stands relating to marriage. Something can usefully be introduced into it so that divorce is viewed in the wider perspective of a lifelong marriage or its breakdown.
It is possible to strengthen the provision for counselling elsewhere in the Bill, and my hon. Friends have tabled amendments to that effect. I am advised, however, that, if it is intended to link the counselling to marriage preparation and guidance in establishing whether a marriage has irretrievably broken down, this is the place to do it.
Not only does divorce law reform affect marriage breakdown, as we argued on Second Reading and will argue continually in Committee, but it is possible to do something positive and use the Bill to strengthen the institution of marriage by direct provisions such as preparation for marriage, counselling, support for counselling and the maintenance of marriages. The amendment's intentions could no doubt be provided in other ways, and the Committee may exercise its ingenuity in exploring those alternatives later in the proceedings.

Mr. Nicholls: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) outline why he had reached particular conclusions. I agree with much of what he said, although I do not agree with the conclusion that he draws. He made the point—as did the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray)—that we should be talking about a campaign for marriage, as divorce is the ultimate failure of the usefulness of marriage.
I was somewhat puzzled, initially, that a Conservative Administration should approach the matter with a view to altering divorce law rather than by addressing the social context of marriage, to which my hon. Friend referred. I found that slightly strange. I am concerned also that a commission of lawyers is the driving force behind the proposals. As a lawyer, I draw two conclusions: first, that I am entitled to be rude about lawyers; secondly, that I am entitled to say that lawyers are not the best people to conceive legislation of that sort.
I am distinctly unhappy about a measure that was not trailed in the manifesto and that has been prompted by the academic ideas of lawyers on the Law Commission. In some extraordinary way, it has emerged as party policy and, as such, must be accepted. The measure seems completely devoid of politics, which I rather favour.
There is nothing ignoble about politics: it is a matter of trying to identify the aspirations of the people who send us here. Sometimes, the aspirations of the Opposition and the Government parties will differ. What brings me here is perhaps different from what brings Opposition Members to this place, but the political process is the same in both cases: each of us tries to reflect the views of our constituency and answer to it. I must admit that, initially, I could not conceive what Conservative constituency had called me to debate a Bill such as this.

Mr. Patten: Has my hon. Friend received any letters in support of the Bill from any known Conservative supporters—of which there are a great many in his constituency as he is such a popular and excellent Member of Parliament?

Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend may say that, and I could not possibly contradict him. I do not know the

politics of the two people concerned, but I have received letters from Cardinal Hume, the Archbishop of Westminster, and from the Bishop of Liverpool writing on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury. I would not hazard a guess as to whether they are Conservatives—my right hon. Friend may try to make the point that they are not my constituents, but that is not important. I do not know where those eminent people have their holiday homes—perhaps that will qualify them as my constituents.
My right hon. Friend makes a serious point. When confronted with a piece of legislation with which I was profoundly out of sympathy, I thought it would be a good idea to canvass the views of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England. That is not to say that I intended, having sought their views, to put my independent judgment to one side, but I was greatly assisted, reassured and impressed by the quality of the arguments advanced by Cardinal Hume and the Bishop of Liverpool. To the extent that I have made any sort of odyssey in relation to the issue, I was greatly assisted by those contributions.
I was assisted also by the fact that politics entered the process for the first time when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department held negotiations with my colleagues and me in an effort to identify a possible Conservative agenda in the Bill. I was impressed also by the approach of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—I hope that he is pleased rather than embarrassed—when dealing with the matter on Second Reading. I began to appreciate that several points needed to be examined.
It was possible simply to walk away from the Bill, saying, "I'm not quite sure how it got here and I will not play any part in it," but I decided not to take that view because of the responses that I received from both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England and as a result of conversations that I had with my right hon. and hon. Friends. There was another reason for my decision: although we may lament the fact that it ever appeared in the first place, if the Bill is to pass into law—which seems likely—we have an obligation to ensure that it performs a useful purpose. It troubles me greatly that, if the Bill is left as it is, the one-year period of separation for pause and reflection would go through unchallenged, which would be a mistake. The Bill also poses the problem for the Committee—with which my hon. Friend is dealing—of whether fault should be brought back into divorce.
It is always dangerous to make a speech in the House on a subject about which one knows something, and I declare an interest in that I do not do that often. However, for many years I made my living as a divorce lawyer. I did not handle just a few divorces, as many other humble country solicitors do, but practised nothing but divorce law. That was a few years ago, but people do not change greatly over the centuries. I learned fairly quickly that the misery and unhappiness that two people deadlocked in matrimony can cause each other was a bottomless pit.
When I was a practising divorce lawyer in my 20s and 30s, at least the point was to some extent academic—in so far as the misery of another human being is ever academic. I have grown older and become greyer, and I am at that miserable time in life, in late middle age, when the marriages of my friends, which I thought were as


stable as I believe my own to be, are cascading around me. That brings home to me how utterly miserable is divorce.
The prospect of bringing fault back into divorce must be addressed. I say without any attempt at sarcasm that I understand to the hilt that which my hon. Friend is trying to achieve. A contract of matrimony is not the same as a hire purchase contract. On one level, a marriage contract should be harder to enter and leave—but it is anyway totally different. I have seen in the past the way that fault has been used as an integral part of the divorce mechanism, and it does not work. If fault has to be produced, in conjunction with time or without time, one must pull fault out of a hat in a prize rabbit way and say, "Guess what. I've found a fault. I've found an isolated act of adultery. I've found a desertion. I've found a pattern of unreasonable behaviour."
Persons who have not practised in the divorce courts as long as I did can have no conception of the difficulty of using a judicial process to carry out that sort of moral audit, which is what we are talking about. Those of us who are inclined superficially to believe that we should reintroduce fault are looking for a certificate of moral righteousness to show that one person has measured up to their obligations and to bring upon the person who has not a sort of contrition that will help to carry them through. That is a marvellous aspiration, but it cannot begin to work.
What about the situation in which a wife deserts her husband and commits an act of adultery? That is a bad enough fault, but wait a moment. She may claim that she was driven out by a hard and domineering husband, so perhaps the fault was his. But hold on another moment—the husband may claim that he had to control and direct his wife because she was a rotten housekeeper, was getting the finances wrong and the children were suffering. Then the wife might say, "Come off it. I married at 18. I didn't know enough, so obviously I was going to get it wrong." What is the answer? God knows—and He is not going to come down to tell us to help us with our deliberations.
Such a scenario is far from fanciful, as anybody who has practised in the courts knows. It is unreal to think that, in such a complex pattern, we can use the courts to work out definitively and fairly who was at fault and who was not. I am just about old enough to remember how it used to be in the old days, when people had their day in court. No video nasty that I have ever seen is more squirmingly embarrassing and heartbreaking than two people having their day in court, trying to explain to the man up there in the wig how they felt and why they acted as they did. It does not work. I do not see how a moral audit in which the circumstances could be brought out and expanded, to produce a definitive version of events, could ever be workable.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I think that everyone in the House will agree with my hon. Friend's analysis that the attribution of fault at the point at which the marriage is breaking down is destructive, but how can we allow couples to enter the contract of marriage—the most solemn contract that we ever enter—on the basis that

a breach of that contract carries no fault and no penalty, although there is never no penalty for the breakdown of such a close relationship?

Mr. Nicholls: If I may say so, my hon. Friend has given half the answer to his question in his concluding remark, but the real answer to his question is that we should have started a debate—in many ways, it is the great debate—about how matrimony has got into its current situation. Is there a campaign for matrimony that could reverse the process that we have seen? God knows, there is not much in present-day Britain that readily unites hon. Members on both sides of the House, but very few hon. Members would deny that stable marriage is the ideal. We do not have that now.
Perhaps we should have a joint manifesto for the parties at the forthcoming general election about the subjects on which we agree. A good one for the shopping list would be the institution of matrimony, but we are not in that situation. We have the Bill, and we must decide whether we will do something useful with it.

Mr. Jenkin: with respect, my hon. Friend has not answered my question.

Mr. Nicholls: I have not given the answer my hon. Friend wanted.

Mr. Jenkin: My point is whether it is right to advertise the marriage contract as a penalty-free contract. That is the question with which we are wrestling. The point is not whether there is an easy way through the divorce process, but whether the marriage contract should be advertised as a penalty-free contract, whatever the pain of breaking that contract may be.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend has again given the answer to his question himself. There is no penalty-free aspect to the failure of a marriage. Of course, we have all met the people who are so callous, so unfeeling or so plain stupid that they can go through the process of divorce and feel perfectly happy at the other end, but they constitute a tiny minority. The reality is broken dreams, broken aspirations, humiliations and pain, not just for the couple, but for their family, their extended family, their children, their whole circle of acquaintances and society itself.

Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way again?

Mr. Nicholls: I shall give my hon. Friend another shot in a moment, but others also wish to speak. My hon. Friend suggested that it takes a law court to impose penalties. A broken marriage imposes penalties that are far more hideous and draconian than anything that any court in today's Britain is likely to dish out. Does my hon. Friend wish me to give way again?

Mr. Jenkin: indicated dissent

Mr. Nicholls: I am surprised that I was able to satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. Jenkin: You did not.

Mr. Nicholls: In that case, I shall pick up my hon. Friend's sedentary heckle to confirm that that is not so.
There is some confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) was accused of indulging in semantics, but to be fair it is not indulging in semantics to make the point that fault is not ground for divorce, even as we sit here today. The irretrievable breakdown of marriage is the only ground for divorce, and it can be proved in five particular ways. That point is more than semantics because the great public outside might think that at least some fault is currently needed for a divorce and that the wicked old Tory Government are removing the concept of fault. That is not accurate.
A second point stems from that issue. At times, there is real confusion in the public's mind and, sometimes, in ours—that when we say that fault will not be present, we are also outlawing conduct. The two are different. The issue that matters most is usually the care of the children, who are the ultimate victims of divorce. Clearly the conduct of the parents, their ability to look after themselves and to handle their own lives correctly will be relevant matters for the court.
I can think of many cases, in which I have acted for one party or the other, in which the divorce went ahead on the grounds of two years' separation and was superficially done amicably and without attribution of fault, but when we came to custody and access to the children, the most appalling, distressing and painful allegations about conduct had to be made because it was only by examining those allegations that the court was able to make its decision about the care and control of the children. That is a reason—a distressing, painful, but necessary, reason—to consider the conduct of the parties, but it is a world away from the insistence that fault should be apportioned between the couple involved.
I accept to the hilt that no Conservative Government should be in the business of making divorce easy, but the idea that fault is in some way a means of buttressing marriage does not make sense to me for one moment. I still wish that the Bill had never come before the House, but in one way it could perform a valuable service. We should be talking positively. We should be advancing the campaign for marriage. We can say that it should be harder to get out of matrimony, and in so doing reinforce exactly the points that have been made by some of my hon. Friends. That is an issue that is covered by the next group of amendments and, accordingly, I shall mention it in no detail now.
There is a real debate to be had about whether one year should be extended to 18 months or two years. That is the way in which those of a conservative inclination could consider the Bill. They could say that the Bill, even now, could be made an instrument for doing something, in a small way, to recognise the fact that marriage is a unique institution. That fact should be acknowledged. That is something that the courts can do. They can say arbitrarily, "If you are going to go into this, it will take you time to get out." That is within the competence of the courts; the allocation of fault, the moral audit, is not.

5 pm

Mr. Michael Jopling: My hon. Friend has told us at some length about the agonies that are experienced by participants in a divorce where fault is involved. Would it not be true to say that

the agonies of the participants are nothing when compared with those of the children, which seem to be infinitely more important? The evidence suggests that, by moving to no-fault divorces, the number of divorces increases. That process brings with it even more agonies for children. How is it sensible for us to move away from divorces that are based partly on fault? The move to the no-fault concept is likely to cause infinitely more agony to the children of marriages that break up.

Mr. Nicholls: If I accepted my right hon. Friend's analysis, I would accept his conclusion at once. I cannot pretend to have a grasp of all the evidence that may emerge from America, Canada or other overseas places. I make no attempt to disguise the fact that I have come to my conclusions as a provincial lawyer who worked a long time ago in divorce and from personal experiences that I am sure are similar to those of other hon. Members.
Introducing a concept of fault in divorce will not help children. If parents will not stay together, they will not. It would be entirely artificial in many marriages, although not all, to say to the children, who in the end remain, "The court decided that mummy was at fault and daddy was not," or "Daddy was at fault and mummy was not." I do not think that children's interests are served by trying to introduce such a construct.
I believe passionately that, to some extent, we are talking about the wrong issues. We should be talking about the positive side of these matters and examining how marriage ever came to be under such threat. Being a legislator is one thing; to an extent we are today reduced to being undertakers.

Dr. Bray: To the ordinary man and woman in the street, the Bill seems to say—this is what will shape their attitudes—that all they need do to obtain a divorce is to claim that their marriage has broken down. They will be given the impression that either party can say that at any time.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct to say that people may have that perception. In terms of carrying the political debate, the way in which we put over these matters initially was defective. If we consider the detail of the Bill—I am not too sure how many people in the street will do that—it is clear that the court must be satisfied that a marriage has irretrievably broken down.
At present, the situation is every bit as bad as the hon. Gentleman suggested. A solicitor in private practice will know that a party to a divorce may well say, "Yes, I have committed adultery. I will tell you the circumstances briefly. It happened at a particular time in a particular street. I cannot identify the exact address because I do not want the other person to be implicated." The solicitor will look that person straight in the eye and say, "I cannot possibly be party to a conspiracy. I am not quite sure that you mean this," and the response will be, "Yes, I promise you that it is true."
The solicitor then writes out a confession statement, including a pretty paragraph about why the party does not want to identify the other person. That is what happens now. It is thoroughly corrupt. It is corrupt in the sense that it draws solicitors into that practice. There is no ideal way of dealing with the situation that I have described, even now. There are many examples of artificiality.
The final and ultimate consideration is that we cannot force people to remain together and to remain married in any meaningful sense if they do not want to. We can make it harder, however, to get out of a unique contract. That is what the next group of amendments would do. I should like to think that, as a consequence of the debate, we may yet, one day, have an investigation into why we ever, as a society, found our way into the jam that we now face.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As was rightly said earlier, there is only one ground of divorce, and that is the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage. I was a divorce lawyer when I was in civvy street. The facts that had to be pleaded in support of irretrievable breakdown were merely facts to establish the main ground. Two of those facts involved no concept of criticism or fault. As was also rightly said, we have a no-fault concept of divorce already.
The proponents of the amendment have signally failed to explain what possible good would come of accepting it and the grouped amendments. What possible good can there be in reintroducing the fault concept, as eloquently stated by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who has experience of divorce law?
Another important fact is that we cannot legislate to keep parties together when de facto they have decided that they will not—either both parties or only one. It is not feasible, possible or reasonable to try to do that. We should not attempt to legislate for morality. As I have said before, I believe that it is illogical and intellectually unsustainable for proponents of the fault principle to argue that, by encouraging bitterness and mud-throwing, we shall protect the institution of marriage. Fault has never been a deterrent to divorce.
As for making divorce easier, I ask the following question: How many divorces per annum are refused by the High Court? The answer is very few. There may be a couple of dozen refusals. The idea of making divorce easier is nonsense and cannot be sustained.
Certain problems stem from current law. By pleading conduct, one party is sometimes given a bargaining advantage when it comes to dealing with ancillary matters. There is often a scramble with one party wanting to get in with the first set of nasty allegations before there is retaliation or before the other side decides to throw up his or her hands and say, "I will not be bothered with this. I will let the thing carry on as it is." There seems to be a rush to get in with the first set of insults. That provokes unnecessary and pointless hostility and bitterness.
Even when a couple have agreed that their marriage cannot be saved, there is the possibility under the current system that matters will be made worse by encouraging one party to make allegations against the other. It is interesting to note that the Law Commission commented that those people who responded to its consultation paper confirmed the view that there was every reason to believe that the present law added needlessly to human misery.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. When he says that couples agree that their marriage cannot be saved, that is exactly what happens, but I suspect that, in many cases, they mean that they have no idea how to set about saving it. That goes back to what the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said

about the paramount importance of finding ways in which acceptable forms of assistance can be found at an earlier stage.

Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely with that view. It is of the utmost importance. I made the point on Second Reading that we should concentrate on assisting in particular young people going into marriage because the divorce rate among teenagers is horrendously high. They should be counselled into understanding the full obligations that they are entering into in the contract of marriage. The earlier we realise that and get something done, the better it will be all round. Incidentally, that might be a reason why divorce rates have shot up so much in the United Kingdom: we are simply not concentrating on the lead-up to divorce, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.

Mr. Devlin: The hon. Gentleman put his finger on a glaring omission in the legislation. It is called the Family Law Bill, but it deals chiefly with divorce. It should deal also with the circumstances in which marriages are made. I would like couples to go through a much more elaborate procedure, perhaps with counselling or arrangements before people get married. Like him, I have met teenagers of 19 who have been divorced after one or two years.

Mr. Llwyd: That is also a useful and valid contribution.
There is no doubt that the law has made it difficult for a small proportion of estranged couples to get divorced. It does so in an arbitrary way, depending on which facts might be proved. As the Law Commission has clearly stated, the present law can make things far worse for the children. Having parents semi-publicly calling each other all manner of things in affidavits and court documents is not the best backcloth for rearing any child. Despite having a thick-skinned constitution, I have frequently been embarrassed in divorce courts and seen the agony in the eyes of young children when mother and father call each other names across the court and say things that would be best left unsaid. The new framework, if it is to pass into law, will do away with much of that heartache and pointless name-calling.

Mrs. Peacock: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about children having to listen to such awful things in court and sometimes outside, but does he really believe that those children will benefit from having either father or mother missing all the time? Has he not ever heard the sobs of a child whose father is not there any more? Is that any worse than listening to parents arguing, certainly in those early stages?

Mr. Llwyd: I hear what the hon. Lady says and I understand her point, but I go back to what I said earlier. If father has decided that the marriage has broken down and cannot live with mother, it is not ideal in any circumstance, because their child will be brought up amid constant bickering, with one parent—perhaps two—who is desperately unhappy with the position. Frankly, the sooner that is put an end to, the better, although I understand the hon. Lady's question and motives and I appreciate what she says. From my experience, however, I cannot agree with her.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Having known the hon. Gentleman for some time, I appreciate


the genuine sincerity with which he is advancing his argument, but, if we accept the Bill, are we not reaching the position where an increasing number of people will say, "Why get married? Is there any purpose?"

Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong argument, but I return to the point raised earlier. If we are to prepare people for marriage, that is undoubtedly a question that they will ask. I do not know what the future holds, but I do know from my experience of divorce law that too many teenagers marry without any thought and suddenly find that they are not matched to their partner at all. They do not understand the obligations involved. I honestly do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. Perhaps at some point someone else can respond. Clearly neither of us can predict what will happen, but he made his point with much force and I understand it.
5.15 pm
It behoves us to regard children's interests as paramount. Their welfare is the main issue in all this. The Law Commission states:
The present system can also make things worse for the children. The children themselves would usually prefer their parents to stay together. But the law cannot force parents to live amicably or prevent them from separating. It is not known whether children suffer more from their parents' separation or from living in a household in conflict where they may be blamed for the couple's inability to part. It is probably impossible to generalise, as there are so many variables which may affect the outcome, including the age and personality of the particular child. But it is known that the children who suffer least from their parents' break-up are usually those who are able to retain a good relationship with them both. Children who suffer most are those whose parents remain in conflict.
That is true and I have seen it in practice over the years.
I shall not quote at length, because I know many hon. Members wish to speak, but the Law Commission makes one or two other important points. It states:
the present law can, for all the reasons given earlier, make the conflict worse. It encourages couples to find fault with one another and disputes about children seem to be more common in divorces based on intolerable behaviour than in others.
It goes on to suggest various points and reaches the conclusion that a no-fault concept should be proposed. That is correct, based on good sense and a useful contribution to family law.
The simple fact is that divorces are about mud-slinging. To my utter regret, some of that mud sometimes splashes on to the innocent children. They are the parties we should be thinking of. Why should private arguments about personal things be made public in that way, especially as it serves no useful purpose? if I may make the obvious point, divorce, however "amicable", is always a calamity. It is an anxious time for everyone. Why should we, as legislators, make it worse? If a marriage cannot be saved, our duty surely is to ease the way from the point of realisation of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage to the decree absolute. That is common good sense. It is in the interests of both parties and in the children's interests, which is important.
May I draw a brief analogy? When I was a law student, during lectures on the law of tort, we were told about the New Zealand no-fault system in relation to car accidents,

which was hailed as a great step forward. In much the same way as the proponents of the fault principle are arguing today, people in favour of retaining the negligence aspect of the law argued that there would be more so-called accidents, bogus claims and a rash of litigation. That was never borne out. I cannot for the life of me see how the no-fault system here will lead to more divorces.
With respect, the proponent of the amendment is a considerable Euro-sceptic. He did, however, travel the whole world to look for evidence to support his argument. I leave that without further comment.
Some opponents have suggested that there will be a drastic increase in the number of divorces. I honestly do not believe that. May I put it differently? If I did believe it, I would not oppose the amendments, and I do not think that other hon. Members would either.
I do not think that amending the law to do away with the concept of fault will increase the divorce rate. I think that it will ease the way towards so-called amicable divorce for small family units, making divorce less painful for the parties concerned and for their children. That is what a family law Bill should be about.

Dame Angela Rumbold: Thank you for calling me so early, Mr. Morris.
I greatly enjoyed the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I agreed with all of it except the end: I did not agree with his conclusions. Like him, I had considerable doubts about the way in which the Bill arrived in the House; I also had considerable doubts about the politics involved—politics with a large or a small "p". I was worried about the fact that a Conservative Administration wanted to introduce such legislation. That is all in the past, however: we are now considering amendments.
My hon. Friend spoke of the awfulness of marriage breakdown and divorce. I do not want to increase the difficulties involved in a very bad marriage and the irretrievable breakdown of a relationship; I do not want to make it harder for people who have lived in difficult and upsetting conditions for years to extricate themselves. For obvious reasons, I do not think that hon. Members should pontificate about how important it is for people to struggle on simply for the sake of the institution of marriage.
I am not a divorce lawyer. I am simply an ordinary woman—a Member of Parliament, a mother and a woman who has been happily married for some 38 years. They have been very good years. I have also worked with children. One aspect of the Bill worries me enormously: we are saying that people must be able to extricate themselves from difficult marriages, and that fault in itself is not a good reason for them to be able to do so, but non-lawyers outside this place will not see the Bill in that light. People will say, "That is fine. We need not do anything except say that the contract into which we entered no longer need exist or bind us."
That probably does not apply to my generation, or even to people who are 10 or 15 years younger than me, but the effect on young people will be different. To an extent, young people are already saying, "Let us have a happy marriage. Let us float down the aisle in white dresses. If it all gets too difficult and we do not enjoy ourselves later on, that does not matter: we can always get out of it."


I do not think that my generation has done enough to make the marriage contract more meaningful to those young people, and I feel guilty about that; but I do not want to participate in legislation such as this.
Hon. Members who are divorce lawyers may disagree with the impression gained by people outside, and I accept their opinion, but the general perception will be that parties can extricate themselves from the contract without having to give any particular reason, or answer to the commitment that they have made—in church, in many instances. I find that difficult to understand.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Many people would agree with the right hon. Lady's general argument, but is not one of the basic problems the fact that marriage is not merely a contract between two parties—although young people may see it as such, because we have not made the position clear? Surely marriage is a contract between two individuals who are committed to each other, and society as a whole. Society says, "We too will sustain the couple in sickness and in health, and the quality of our legislation and our community life will help them to maintain their ideals." Is it not our duty to make that clear in a positive way, so that the real meaning of the contract—which I think the right hon. Lady understands—can make things easier, and deal with the terrible tragedies that can and, alas, do occur?

Dame Angela Rumbold: That is probably true to an extent. My point is that, when people enter into that contract and make that commitment, there is a deep understanding that it is not all that easy to extricate oneself. I want to make that clearer.
Over the years, a range of factors will have an effect. We should not consider just what happens in a first-generation marriage breakdown; when they grow up, the children of that marriage are likely to follow the pattern set by their parents. They, and subsequent generations, may say, "Mummy and daddy didn't make it. Now that we are grown up, if we make the same mistakes we can do the same to our children." The legislation should not allow people to say that no fault is involved, and to assume that they can walk away from the commitment that they have made.

Mr. Nicholls: No one is suggesting that there is no such thing as fault. We are considering whether the courts are an adequate instrument for the apportioning of fault.
My right hon. Friend has spoken about the difficulty or otherwise of getting out of the commitment. Surely, the message that can be conveyed—even through the Bill; it is connected with the way in which the Bill came to the House in the first place—is that, although we cannot stop young people getting married, because we have not thought about a campaign for marriage yet, it will be much harder for them to extricate themselves. They may have to wait not just a year, but 18 months or two years. If my right hon. Friend said that, we might wind up in the same Lobby.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I have no doubt that we will wind up in the same Lobby when we vote on the second amendment, because I agree with that point entirely.
I cannot for the life of me understand why young people still want to opt for the commitment of marriage. They no longer have any reason to marry. What is the

purpose? Why do they not do what the majority do anyway to begin with, and simply set up home together? A shared mortgage is more of a commitment than a church ceremony.

Mr. Rowe: As my right hon. Friend is no doubt aware, in Great Britain the proportion of unmarried women aged between 18 and 49 who are cohabiting has almost doubled in the past 13 years.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I am grateful for that information, but it does not surprise me.
We have a major responsibility, not so much for adults who make commitments such as marriage, as for the children. I fear that the Bill—whether for the best legal reasons or not—sends the outside world the message that the children will not suffer, because it is far better for parents to live together squabbling and fighting. I am worried that it sends the message that it is far better for children to live in a single household in which there is one parent who is happy and contented.
I do not know how many people realise that small children blame themselves when their parents do not get on and seek to divorce. Little Johnny or Mary wonder what they did to make mummy and daddy think that they could not live together. When we examine this type of legislation, I hope that we do not simply take the point of view of lawyers or of people who sit on committees and say that it must be much better for children to live with one parent under a sensible arrangement in which daddy will have custody of the children at the weekend and mummy will have them during the week.
5.30 pm
Let us think about what the children feel. They ask themselves, "Why don't my mummy and daddy live together, like the parents of little Fred or Johnny at school?" All those things go through children's minds and have a profound effect on them as they grow up. I ask the lawyers, as I have asked many times before, how they can be so certain that what they have decreed for children is best, merely because it seems to be a convenient, clean and better way. What makes anyone think that a single woman will find bringing up two children on her own better than struggling along in a relationship that is perhaps less than good but in which there is another person who will be there sometimes to give her some support?
People experience very difficult periods in most marriages, and most marriages have ups and downs. But the reality is that, if one gets over those difficulties, two people in a household can ultimately come together to provide a stable background for children to grow up in, even if they occasionally argue or if one partner is sometimes away.

Mr. Nicholls: How will the reintroduction of a concept of fault in the eventual divorce make it more likely that parents will stay together for the sake of their children?

Dame Angela Rumbold: That is the very nub of the question. People have to have a greater reason to divorce than simply because they have disagreements. The point that I am trying to make—probably not very well—is that I fear that couples think that a reason for divorce is because


they have had a quarrel or because one partner has spent too much from the bank account or fancies someone down the road for three or four days. The situation is straightforward if a greater reason has to be demonstrated, such as when the partners have parted company for two years and the relationship has demonstrably broken down or when one partner has gone and is never coming back.
My concern is that if we do not have a greater reason for divorce, we will hand it on a plate to those who do not have such a sense of responsibility—partly because people such as myself have not given them a sense of responsibility over the years—and that it will become all too easy for them to have children and to part company without serious thought.
I shall not say anything further on the issue, but I feel very strongly that it is important to examine the consequences for children of divorce. We should not accept divorce legislation without some concern for and thought about exactly what will happen to small children, rather than considering the views of the elderly people who sit on commissions and in committees who have decided what will happen to children.

Mr. Devlin: Something needs to be done about the current law on divorce. One matter that everyone—practitioners, commissioners and respondents to the White Paper—agrees on is that the current law does not work and that the current, intolerably high divorce rate is not helped by the current system.
As I said in an intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), the current law is that divorce is available on demand. The current law is a cop-out and represents a failure in the 1960s to bite the bullet in terms of the role of fault in divorce. The result has been a hybrid system that is not satisfactory from anyone's point of view. Fault is not a ground for divorce, but the sole ground for divorce is irretrievable breakdown that must be witnessed by one of five facts. In some cases, that amounts to faults.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said earlier in the debate, if one wants a divorce under current law, one can go along and allege adultery—one's own or one's partner's—and obtain it in about three months. Nothing else would have to be said about the adultery, such as when or where it took place. We no longer have the grand old days in which the Queen's commissioners, or whatever they were called, went down to Brighton to take photographs of people coming out of hotels after an indecent amount of time.
The current system has four main shortcomings, such as encouraging recrimination by retaining the fault element. It may seem controversial to remove all elements of fault, but if acrimony is to be taken out of divorce in the interests of saving marriages, we must stop couples blaming each other for the break-up of their marriage. Of course there is an important proviso that the courts must be able to take into account the behaviour of one partner if it would be manifestly unfair to the other partner not to do so.
As the Bill is drafted, clause 3 states:

If an application for a divorce order or for a separation order is made to the court under this section by one or both of the parties to a marriage, the court shall make the order applied for if (but only if)—
(a) the marriage has broken down irretrievably".
The Bill does not say what evidence should be adduced to say that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, but I imagine from my experience—I must confess to the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) that I am a lawyer—that that will be done by means of an affidavit. The affidavit could be as short as saying that, "This marriage has broken down irretrievably", or it could be as long as saying that, "This marriage has broken down irretrievably for the following 59 or 600 reasons", as some affidavits currently do.
Although I have never practised divorce law, I have seen divorce petitions that have gone on describing so-called "unreasonable behaviour" for page after page. One Sunday magazine—I cannot remember which one—not long ago carried a mildly humorous account, or at least it would have been humorous if had not been so tragic, of the reasons currently cited as unreasonable behaviour. The reasons varied from such terrible crimes as cutting one's toe nails and leaving the pieces on the bathroom floor to regularly beating up one's wife, going out and getting drunk and not coming home at night. There is obviously an enormous range within those parameters. but the bulk of that survey showed that the vast majority of incidents of so-called "unreasonable behaviour" were very trivial. Anyone who takes a responsible attitude to a marriage would overlook such trivial matters, or at least try to accommodate one's partner to achieve a longer-term good.
The current system has shortcomings in that it affords no opportunity for reconciliation or mediation, not even on such issues as what will happen to the children or how the family finances will be settled. The current process also contains nothing to show that any thought has been given to the children. The principal issue in the current system is the divorce or the breakdown of the marriage, and any thought for the children is purely secondary.
When the Family Reform Act 1969 was passed, it was thought that the period between the decree nisi and the decree absolute would be used as a period for reflection and to make financial arrangements and arrangements for the children, but that has not happened: people get their first decree and then just wait the minimum amount of time until the court automatically grants them the second decree.
Anyone who thinks that the current system in any way apportions blame to either party going through a divorce is living in cloud cuckoo land. Ever year, hundreds of thousands of divorces occur for which a variety of reasons are given. No one feels any shame, publicly or privately, about an allegation of adultery. Yet adultery is given as the reason in the vast majority of cases in which men divorce women. Women tend to prefer to cite unreasonable behaviour. None the less, no one feels any shame about such allegations, and the allegations are rarely, if ever, made public. Indeed, there is no shame these days—if there ever was—in being divorced. It happens to the best of us, and sometimes for reasons that we do not understand until later.
Divorce can occur too quickly. Once a person has made the difficult decision to get a divorce, it is easy to go through the whole process in well under a year and look


back later, wondering about everything that was thrown up. The process, once entered into, becomes acrimonious because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge pointed out, there is a cycle of allegations against the other party, which does nothing to resolve simple issues that may need to be resolved on the back of a divorce.
As for the amendment, I counsel my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle to take account of three points which constitute a test that I have used when considering legislation since I became a member of Parliament. Good legislation should be comprehensible, enforceable and fair. The current divorce law is not really comprehensible. Indeed, it is widely misunderstood. The Bill is widely comprehensible, although perhaps differently from how we might imagine from listening to the debate. In any event, it will be easily understood.
Secondly, it is easily enforceable. Thirdly, the Bill is fair, not just to the two parties involved but to the community at large and, more particularly, to the children. Children do not need to know what father said about mother or what mother said about father in order to get a separation when they felt that their marriage was at an end.
As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), if a family law Bill proceeds purely on the basis that it sets out the arrangements for the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage and the separation of two parties, it is fundamentally weakened. It should prescribe not only the circumstances in which divorce will be granted, but those in which marriage can be entered into in the first place.
It should be made more difficult to get married, and much more difficult to get divorced. With the social status of marriage should go fiscal and other advantages, but that is a much bigger issue than can be dealt with in the Bill. However, when debating a future Finance Bill, we should settle down to consider that matter comprehensively in the round.

Mr. Rowe: The debate has shown that there is unanimity in the Committee about the importance of trying to improve the existing system, whether in relation to marriage, divorce or the upbringing of children. As I understand it, the principal motive for introducing the Bill was an attempt sharply to improve the way in which children's affairs are handled in the event of the breakdown of a marriage.
Hitherto, there has been virtually no concentration on the well-being of the children. Indeed, one of the most depressing features of the many cases that come to my surgery and, I have no doubt, to that of other hon. Members, is the ease with which arrangements made in court are effectively set aside in practice the moment that the decision has been gazetted, whether because the wife moves with a new boyfriend to another part of the country and the father cannot afford to follow or for some other reason.
5.45 pm
We have already heard this statistic, but it bears repeating because it is horrendous: in this country, 800,000 children have no contact with their natural fathers. It is said that in Britain 50 per cent. of children lose contact with their fathers within three years of divorce; yet I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of children need fathers. The way in which the

current system is manipulated to prevent fathers from having a fair deal is very frightening, but I fear that the proposed system will be equally manipulated. I agree that that is one aspect of the problem that we need to consider carefully.
Ten days ago I experienced one of the happiest days of my life. My elder stepdaughter was married from my house. She was given away by her own father, and we had the most lovely day. One can only hope that the young couple will enjoy a marriage of permanence and stability for the rest of their lives. That is an uncovenanted blessing for which I am deeply grateful, but I fear that it is not an especially common experience.
The nation has to deal seriously with the pressures and stresses of divorce on children of whatever age.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that marriage is not just a personal matter, but one in which the state, the Government and society at large have a tremendous stake—not only because marriage provides a solid basis on which many children can thrive and the next generation can prosper, but because of the colossal costs payable by the state in the event of a marriage breaking down.
We have grossly neglected our responsibility for preparing young people who want to get married, for sustaining them when they are married and, indeed, for continuing to sustain them when they have children. One feature of the sorry story of the escalating number of divorces in this country is that we have grossly underestimated the financial cost to couples of bringing up children. We need to consider that, because there is no doubt that financial pressure is one of the many pressures that can effectively work to break up marriages.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) spoke eloquently and asked how we got where we are. That question is worth considering. We have not recognised or understood the effects of, for example, the rapidly falling age of puberty, remarkably better physical health and the extraordinary impact of birth control and the extension of education.
Half the nation's young people—or more than half—are sexually capable and aware much earlier than previous generations were. However, circumstances mean that many are incapable of setting up a household of their own until they are perhaps 25 or 26. That means that, throughout their most sexually active years, society's constraints prevent them from taking the next step. Their methods of dealing with that often contribute to the instability of relationships, which do not always provide the very best basis for a stable marriage. The other group of young people who do not have or take the opportunity to stay in education are in a similar situation: their incomes are so low that they cannot easily set up and sustain a household—certainly not one in which they can rear children successfully.
Those are some of the reasons why we are where we are. They are exacerbated by the fact that, increasingly, young couples do not have the extended family close by to help take the pressures off them. There is no doubt that a grandparent looking after children during the working day is very different from a series of casual baby sitters who may be taking hard-earned money out of the household.
I would take issue with right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) in one respect. The preservation of the concept of fault at the


time of a divorce does not achieve any of the things that she hopes. We know now—it has been said several times—that people who are bent on breaking up their marriage will cheat. They will tell lies about the reasons why they want a divorce if it is the only—or the quickest—way to achieve their purpose. We should make no mistake about this: people who want to get out of a marriage for whatever reason become quite ruthless. I do not think that it helps anybody to provide false reasons simply in order to get out of a marriage.
I also think that we are curiously naive to trust judges to make the best disposition for families. Some judges are remarkably sensitive, experienced, sophisticated and sympathetic in what they do, but, as Lord Kilbrandon pointed out when children's hearings were introduced in Scotland, the whole training of judges makes it less likely that they will be able—especially in a short time—to make appropriate decisions about sensitive family matters. If decisions are to be made about the best disposition for a family's future, they should be made by people who have had a considerable degree of special training, rather than in ordinary courts, even though some judges are extraordinarily good at making such decisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) made the point that, in the United States of America, a number of states are now moving away from the concept of no-fault divorce because they say that it has increased the rate of divorce. Although I cannot comment on that, because I have not looked in detail at the research, it seems equally probable that such an increase is post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The divorce rate is rising anyway, for the reasons to which I have referred, and the introduction of no-fault divorce may not have been especially instrumental in that.
I do not intend to support the reintroduction of fault. I believe that it has all the ill effects of which hon. Members have spoken so eloquently, and it does not create any of the appropriate safeguards that we seek.
We believe passionately that careers advice is useful to young people. Many young people undergo a series of quite sophisticated careers advice at school. Part of the purpose of that is to discover what they are good at and what they will fit into to their satisfaction, but part is to do with how much money they can make in the course of their working lives. It is high time that we realised that the most expensive thing that can happen to a person is divorce. It is hugely costly and one of the reasons why a substantial number of people are, in the slightly exaggerated words of the Child Poverty Action Group, "living in poverty". Many such people are living in households that have broken up.
It seems absurd that we should spend so much time, effort, energy and skill on teaching young people what sort of career they might enter to maximise their earnings while spending so little time, effort and energy explaining to them the costs as well as the opportunities of marriage.

Sir Edward Heath: To a layman such as myself and, I believe, many laymen outside the Committee, we appear to have an incomparable ability to make this matter extraordinarily complicated. When they read Hansard—which of course they will not—they will find themselves asking what the

debate was all about. It would not appear so complicated if we separated the two major objectives and recognised the difference between them. The first is how we deal with a broken marriage; the second is how we deal with the consequences of it. If we confuse the two so that the one influences the other, we are making it unnecessarily complicated and storing up a great deal of trouble for everybody.
The breakdown of marriage is in many ways a tragedy. I cannot accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who I think has left the Chamber, that marriage is a contract for life that people ought to regard like any other contract. Most people regard marriage both as much more than a contract for life and as much less than a contract for life.
It is much more than a contract because people regard it as a relationship between two human beings which rests on a wide variety of aspects of character in both people. It is much less than a contract because people recognise—most of them right at the beginning—that when things begin to go wrong it is not a business contract that one can say is worth a certain amount and determine how it is to be spread. It is possible for arrangements to be made, of course, and many are, but not in the form of a business contract such as that described my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North.
If one tries to make divorce more difficult, fewer people will get married. There is evidence of that already. Our whole society has changed dramatically since the end of the second world war—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Edward Heath: Perhaps I may just finish one sentence.
Many people are just not getting married. They have their children and sometimes spend their whole lives together. Sometimes, by the time their children have grown up, they reach the stage where they want a change. That has now become part of our society. I do not believe that making it more difficult is any solution to the problem, because all that will happen is that people will not get married.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In the 19th century, one had to have an Act of Parliament to get divorced. Until relatively recently, it was extremely difficult to get divorced in this country. Yet far more people got married.

6 pm

Sir Edward Heath: I question those figures. I also question the remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that we have had 2,000 years of Christianity in this country, during the whole of which period Christian values in marriage have been maintained. My hon. Friend should take another little glimpse at the history of this country over the past 2,000 years, because it does not correspond to his description.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle moved on to another point which has been raised in various forms: how one deals with fault. I believe that it would be absolutely wrong to restore fault in the Bill. The concept of fault breeds perpetual discontent and it especially affects children; quite rightly,


we have heard a great deal about children. It complicates legislation, as we heard from my hon. Friend, who has spent much of his life dealing with divorce suits. We should not in any circumstances reintroduce the notion of fault: we should be absolutely clear about that.
The question was raised why a Conservative Government should introduce this legislation. It is absolutely right that they should do so, because the responsibility of the Conservative party and of the Conservative Government is to our community as a whole. We have to make provision for everybody. We may not agree with some people, but we have that responsibility as an elected Government and as the party in power.
In the population today, there are those who, as a result of their religious convictions, believe that divorce cannot be permitted. That is very well for those who accept that belief—there is no challenge—but they are not entitled in Parliament to impose their belief on other members of the community. That is the basic difference, whether they accept it or not. Other Christian beliefs have varying views about what is permissible in terms of marriage. Very well—they are all entitled to their views.
All Governments today have to face the fact that a majority of the population do not acknowledge Christian belief at all. Even if one accepts that 52 per cent. of people do not want to change the law, that still leaves 48 per cent. of the population with whom the Government must cope and whom they have to consider. I cannot possibly accept that a Conservative Government cannot introduce changes in approach to these matters, which will affect many people even though some would claim that they are not the majority. The Government are absolutely justified in dealing with this matter.
My second objective is to improve the situation after divorce, or to prevent divorce. To a large extent, that is the responsibility of the Churches and the social organisations; it is also, in part, the responsibility of our education system. That responsibility is not being carried out. If the Churches approach the matter—to answer the question about the point of getting married—we shall begin to do some good overall. That is why it is so important to keep the two objectives separate and to deal effectively with cases in which breakdown has occurred.
We should also do everything possible to deal with the situation before people enter marriage, so that they recognise what the requirements are, what can be achieved and the happiness that they can get. After a marriage has broken down, we should ensure that the right action is taken for the welfare of children, whether one parent is looking after them or whether both are looking after them. We should ensure that people get the necessary guidance and every possible assistance to allow their children to have a proper life of their own.
For those reasons, I believe that the amendment should be defeated. I cannot understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle based the greater part of his speech on the argument that because the Americans were throwing out some aspects of legislation we should therefore do the same. There may be things that we still have to learn from the Americans, but I do not think that morality is one of them. I well know the way in which social forces in the United States work to bring about their ends—we can see what is happening in terms of capital punishment, for example. I know that my hon. Friend will not base his argument on Europe; I hope that he will not base it on the United States either.
I strongly support the position taken by the Minister and by the Government and I hope that the House will defeat the amendment.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Those of us who try to follow the Christian way have to recognise that divorce law has come a long way since its origin in the old ecclesiastical courts. We have to recognise that times have changed. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, we have to realise that we cannot impose our views on the generality of the population. Nevertheless, we have a right to point out the effects of a failure to follow the precepts that we seek to follow. It is especially important in human and family law to say that we, as far as we are able as legislators, should consider ways—not only at the time when, alas, families break up—in which to bolster the institution of marriage.
Whatever the trends may be, we can point out the sad victims of those trends—the children—and we can point out the great unhappiness that follows. We are entitled to do so and we are also entitled to press the Government to look at ways, across the board, in which the institution of marriage, which is the bedrock of a civilised society, can be strengthened, whether in terms of education, as the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, or across the range of policy—fiscal, housing or employment policy. Clearly, it would be going beyond the scope of the amendment to look at those matters.
There are costs, both financial and in terms of human distress, caused by the high incidence of divorce in this country. It has been said that we are the divorce capital of Europe. We may ask why that is so. We see the victims and the costs that flow from divorce.

Mr. Alton: I strongly support the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Does he accept that the argument is always advanced—it was advanced even against Wilberforce and his companions—that legislators are trying to impose their morality on the nation? Wilberforce and his friends fought successfully in the House for 40 long years to repeal the slavery laws. Is it not the case that, in a democratic society—we live in a pluralist society—it is not just a question of the imposition of values? No one seeks to do that.
However, there is a responsibility and a duty to share what one believes to be right with the rest of the populace in the hope that people will embrace those virtues. If one believes that that is the best way in which to live, that marriage, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, is the bedrock of our society and that the strengthening of family life should be our objective, surely it is legitimate for all hon. Members, regardless of whether they have religious values, to try to achieve that objective.

Mr. Anderson: I wholly accept that it was right—as it is at all times—for slavery to be abolished and that Wilberforce and his friends in the Clapham sect were right to pursue that aim. I would not put some of the moral issues that we face today—whether abortion, homosexuality or divorce—in the same category. The equivalent of the anti-slavery argument is to ensure, as far as we are able, that the state uses every possible instrument available to support the institution of marriage.
I accept that our divorce laws may well have an influence, for good or ill, on the incidence of divorce. That is one of the key elements that we need to discuss


today. However, I shall come quickly to the nub of the question. Is fault helpful in terms of divorce, and if so, what should be done about it?
Like one or two other hon. Members, I am a lapsed practitioner, so my knowledge is somewhat out of date. However, I recall that our judges, as has so often been said, are brought up in an adversarial tradition and may be ill suited to look into the minds and conduct of members of the public. All too often, the position depends on which party gets to the solicitor first.
It has been said that, in general, the public say, "Yes, we think that divorce should be made more difficult," but when they talk about individuals whom they know—such as their relatives, or people who live in their street—they are far more understanding, and tend to say, "Because we know this couple, we accept that it is not a simple question of 100 per cent. or 0 per cent. There was fault on both sides."
It would be improper if I were to stray into discussing the royal family, so I shall not be specific, but in connection with one or two well-publicised difficulties of some of the senior members of the royal family, it is certain that both the parties could, if they were so minded, rely on various faults in a divorce petition. I shall leave it at that, Sir Geoffrey.
In the generality of cases, the course of events often depends on who goes to the solicitor first. There may be a 10-year marriage, and the wife will say to a solicitor, "I am unhappy." The solicitor will then ask whether, over the life of the marriage, she can think of occasions on which her husband has been difficult. It is a pretty unusual marriage which has not had a fair number of difficult moments over 10 years. The solicitor will then crystallise and distil those examples into 10 or so incidents which, when put together, read in a lurid way, as if the marriage was especially wicked and abnormal, whereas in fact it was probably very normal.
When the petition is passed to the husband, the respondent, he will immediately hit the roof, and will not recognise what he reads in it. That is hardly a basis for dealing with the sad after-effects of marriage breakdown, particularly from the point of view of the children, for whom we should all be concerned.
I am extremely sceptical about the divorce court's searching for where the fault lies. I understand hon. Members' motives, derived from the old ecclesiastical traditions. They will say that there must be contrition—but I say that there must be contrition on both sides. That is a personal matter, and the interest of the state should be rather less concerned with it.
Like the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and others, my experience is that in very few marriages is the fault wholly on one side. Even if the fault could be accurately divided, there is no real public purpose in seeking to establish its exact apportionment. So although I shall be with the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on his next key amendment, my experience as a lapsed practitioner leads me to tell him that I shall not support him now.
I believe not only that for a court to ascertain with precision the degree of fault is an impossible task, and a highly artificial process, dependent on factors such as who

goes to a solicitor first, but that it serves no useful purpose. Indeed, it may exacerbate the situation, which is contrary to our public purpose.

Mr. Michael Alison: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). It focuses the Committee's attention on the issue of fault, to which most of my right hon. and hon. Friends have addressed themselves in their speeches, not the least of which was the important speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath).
The only point at which I parted company from my right hon. Friend was over his absolute repudiation of the necessity for fault, both in the Bill and in the amendment. I must draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that fault is already part of the Government's proposals. They have not evacuated fault, or castrated the Bill so that it is a eunuch in terms of fault. Fault remains in the Bill.
6.15 pm
I shall quote from the guidance that was circulated to Members of Parliament by a mysterious agency not a hundred miles from the Lord Chancellor's Department:
In addition, the present law, which requires the court to take conduct into account in decisions relating to finance and property orders, where it would be inequitable not to do so, is not altered by this Bill".
So fault is at the very heart of the Bill.
The fundamental issue that we must decide is whether fault should be the sting in the tail, or more up front, as a possibly curative and preventive factor, affecting the way in which divorce proceedings may take place.
I take the point cogently argued by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who is also a practitioner, and who repudiated the idea of fault being up front. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is also a practitioner in that area of the law, and I believe that he thought that, although fault is bound to come into consideration at some point, to have it up front as a major initial hurdle is likely to exacerbate the situation and make things more difficult. That was advanced as one reason for disallowing fault up front.

Mr. Nicholls: The point that I was making was simply that, when we deal with the relatively narrow questions of who looks after the children, or how the money is divided, conduct is a subject with which a court can competently deal—whereas to conduct a moral audit between two people, and to work out how they fulfilled their obligations towards each other, is beyond the competence of any earthly court that I have ever come across.

Mr. Alison: There speaks the reasonable voice of the practitioner in the law. However, I shall quote from a letter to the Committee that shows the attitude and approach of a victim—in this case, a feminine victim—of the various processes that make up a divorce. I make no apology to the Committee for quoting from the letter, which says:
to have no 'fault' actually harms reconciliation attempts. Jim"—
I shall call the lady's erstwhile husband "Jim", although that is not his name—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Jim?"] Having caught the eye of my hon. Friend the Member for


Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), I shall immediately abandon that pseudonym and call the man "Marmaduke" instead, in the hope that I shall not be causing offence anywhere in the Committee.
If one makes that change, the letter reads:
Marmaduke would not tell me what I had done wrong from a November to the March when I received the divorce petition in an envelope at the breakfast table.
Divorce by post. The letter continues:
When I did not know what I had done wrong I could not say sorry to specific things, I could not try to make amends for specific things, and there was no way of negotiating agreement if one did not know what the problem was. Also no one else could come to the rescue and try and reason, if there was nothing to reason about and no way to make amends.
The registrar told me that the law upheld Marmaduke's viewpoint, however trivial the accusations were, because the law recognised the feelings of the petitioner as to what he felt was unreasonable, and therefore if I attempted to defend my actions this was counted as being even more unreasonable!
In other words, it needs to be defined in law that the accusations are based on behaviour and not only on the feelings of the petitioner. That is a fundamental reason for bringing the factor of fault, which is latent and irreplaceable in the Bill, right to the forefront in the hope that it will help with reconciliation.
I shall again quote from the important document that the Government have circulated. Under the explanation for the minimum period, the 12-month option, it states:
Once a statement of marital breakdown has been registered with the court, a minimum twelve month cooling-off period will follow during which couples will be encouraged to reflect on whether their marriage can be saved".
How can someone be encouraged to reflect on that if the Bill, without fault, conspires to conceal the underlying factors? We must have up front the factors that the Government themselves propose should be specified and placed under the microscope later in the divorce proceedings.
The very divorce proceedings that are the subject of the 12-month limit are flexible if the factors of fault are not properly dealt with. All that the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle asks is that the realities of fault be specified, placed up front and used to help focus attention on the root of the problems of the marriage, so that the mediation and reconciliation that is in everyone's sights can be fruitful. It is for that reason that I hope that the Committee will see the sense in the Government maintaining fault. There is a half-open door in the Bill, and the amendment will push it a little wider to add logic to common sense in our approach.

Mr. Patten: I am glad to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), and agree with everything that he said. I shall not labour the point any longer.
It has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on the way in which he introduced it. He put forward a case that many hon. Members, certainly many Conservative Members, find persuasive. He gave way on many occasions and replied with great authority. The debate lapsed into agreeable high farce only when the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) suggested that this was a Euro-sceptic issue. One of my

hon. Friends who was slumbering behind me woke up and rushed off to find whether there was some proposal for a Euro-marriage. He has not come back—Lord knows what he has found out.
Alas that we are where we are. This is a classic case of listening to experts. I have listened to experts; many of my best friends are experts. We have listened to lawyers—many of my closest, oldest and most stalwart friends are lawyers. We have ended up with a process-driven Bill that deals with technicalities and misses the main point, which is about marriage, the family and our social fabric. That is why we are where we are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made a remarkable speech. I have listened to him often in the past 13 years, and it was one of the best that he has made. He said that we should use the Bill in Committee and on Report to try to introduce elements that will help to support the institution of marriage.
We are, alas, where we are, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said, but we must try to use the Bill as constructively as possible to underpin the institutions of marriage and family. I suspect that there is much cross-party agreement on that. The arguments will go on in Committee and on Report. At least two days of debate on the Floor will be necessary for proper and careful consideration on Report. There will be changes at each stage to improve the Bill to support marriage, even though it was introduced to expedite and tidy up divorce.
I have only three points: first, a brief comment on the nature of contracts; secondly, a point about what has happened elsewhere in the world where such changes have been introduced; and thirdly, one about what will happen in 2020 if the Bill passes largely unamended.
Much has been said about the importance of contracts and of not lightly entering into agreements. That must be considered most solemnly, whether in a religious or secular sense, when two people decide to marry and live with each other for the rest of their lives. If a marriage contract is empty and has no meaning, marriage has no meaning.
I fall back, as I have on several previous occasions, on one of my distinguished constituents, Dr. Ruth Deech, the principal of St. Anne's college, Oxford. I do not know what her politics are. Lamentably, she is not a member of the Oxford, West and Abingdon Conservative Association. Equally lamentably, she persecutes me from time to time with attacks on the Government's education and other policies. I do not think that she is a close friend of the Government. In 1969, on the previous occasion when we set out to reform divorce law, she was a young researcher at the Law Commission. She saw it happen. She saw the results. Every time that we have legislated on divorce, as we propose to do today—whatever we have done or said—there has been a surge in the number of divorces thereafter.
We do not need to look to the United States or Australia for such evidence. If the Bill is passed, Dr. Deech says:
The contract of marriage will become an empty one; there will
be no rights and duties, no standards of behaviour, no commitment … Under the proposed new law marriage will be terminable with less formality than, for example, the ending of a lease or the hiring of a car.
I only wish that there were another way of filling the marriage contract with meaning that did not force us to consider the issue of fault. It would be agreeable to find


some other way of putting commitment into the marriage contract. Alas, fault is all we have. I am totally persuaded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison).
It is interesting to consider other parts of the world. Wherever no-fault divorce, to use that convenient shorthand, has been introduced, there has always been an immediate spurt in the number of divorces, which has gone on for several years and then plateaued, leaving divorce at a higher level than it was before the legislative change.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Patten: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but he must remember that I have been very nice to him this afternoon.

Mr. Nicholls: I say this with all obsequiousness. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that there has been a surge in divorces. Is he saying that there must therefore have been a surge in marital breakdowns, or is it simply that broken marriages have been formalised?

Mr. Patten: To the best of my knowledge, in Australia, New Zealand and the United States, there has been a surge in marital breakdowns.
I was not invited by President Clinton to his national prayer breakfast in Washington on 1 February, but he was quoted as saying—referring to his lawful wedded wife—
Hillary said in her book that 'Till death do us part' has often become, 'Till the going gets tough.'
Speaking with American experience, the President said:
 "It may be that it ought to be a little harder to get a divorce where children are involved".
I say, "Hear, hear Mr. President," to that.
Nor have I ever met the Governor of Iowa, a Mr. Terry Branstad. In his state of the state of Iowa message on 9 January 1996, he said:
I believe that we can, as a state, reinforce the two-parent family for the good of children … I do believe we should reform our divorce laws to require mutual consent or specific grounds for divorce. Our present no-fault divorce laws have transformed marriage into an arrangement of convenience rather than an act of commitment. Parents need to understand that a divorce can severely hurt children".
Again, I say, "Hear, hear."
My third and last point is about what happens in Britain. Some say that we should not look to legislators in America, New Zealand or Australia. We do not have to look so far to see that our European brethren in Germany, France and elsewhere are, very sensibly, not seeking to go down the road of no-fault divorce. They generally have a much more stable social set-up as far as the family is concerned.
I end with two quotations from two letters. One is from my constituents Dr. and Mrs. W. D. Hawes of 74 Hurst Rise road, Oxford, who wrote to me saying:
One-year divorce would send out the wrong signal for the nation. Marriages are entered into by two adults making binding vows before God in a church or public promises in a register office and should not be treated lightly.

They continue, and this is such a telling phrase:
If we continually dismiss our vows and pledges as worthless we are undermining the very basis of our civilisation. Are our words to have no meaning at all? What conclusions will our children come to?
6.30 pm
My constituents are right, as was the head teacher of a primary school in Norwich, Mr. Keith Piercehouse of 57 Christchurch road, Norwich, who wrote to me saying:
Why should divorce always be on the basis of no fault? Faults like wrong and responsibility are concepts that are readily used in other branches of law and morals. Often there is wrong done by one party in a marriage to the other and this should be acknowledged … We do not have no-fault crimes so why should there be no-fault divorces?
That is very telling from a practised head teacher.
What will happen if the Bill passes into law? The signal will go out from this place that we do not regard the marriage contract as a binding contract and as something which is, or should be, full of commitment, which one should strive to keep to for the rest of one's life.
The evidence from all other countries where that form of divorce has been introduced is that there has been an immediate surge in the number of divorces. My prediction is that our alarmingly high divorce rate, which makes us the divorce capital of Europe, will so increase that by 2020 there will he just as many applications for divorce as for marriage licences in any one year.
We are dealing with a solemn and difficult issue. I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench well in wrestling with these arguments, but I thoroughly commend to the Committee the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, when reflecting on the Bill earlier in the year, thought back to a statement made by the Catholic bishops conference in November last year.
The bishops said:
differing judgments can be made sincerely, honestly and legitimately on the details of the bill and its predictable effects".
Anyone listening to this debate and to the contributions from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—the latter made a particularly worthwhile and important contribution—would agree that that is the case. All were sincere and genuine in their concerns, but were arriving at differing conclusions about the effect of the legislation and calling on us to go into different sides of the Lobby.
It is a good thing that, on both sides of the Committee, we have agreed to treat the issue and the other amendments tabled this evening as matters of conscience and matters for a free vote. Therefore, anything that I say from this Dispatch Box should not be seen as in any way seeking to persuade my colleagues or anyone else how to exercise their vote. It is a matter of conscience.
The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) is right to say that lawyers should claim no particular wisdom in this area, as we have a particular role and responsibility in relation to our


professional lives, but we make a muck of our marriages and relationships just as anyone else does so we have no particular wisdom. Like other hon. Members, I have some experience of what goes on between a lawyer and a client during the breakdown of a marriage. One has a special relationship with one's client in that context.
I have learnt that, whether one considers the old matrimonial offences, which I can just about remember, or fault as evidence of irretrievable breakdown—there is a distinction, which is not just semantic—the role of fault in divorce and the role of fault as the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) would have it—up front—almost universally has the effect of engendering bitterness and conflict between the parties. Almost invariably, it is a source of harm and suffering to those parties and to the children. That is my experience.

Mr. Clive Soley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Boateng: May I first complete this point?
I am driven from that experience to the conclusion that we ought to take the steps on fault proposed in the Bill. Having said that, we must be clear about what the law can achieve and about the messages it sends, and the importance of ensuring that the law reflects reality. Part of that reality is that there is culpability in the breakdown of marriage. It is no use pretending that, when a relationship breaks down, one can divorce that from fault. One cannot do so.
It is no use pretending either—here there is a real danger—that what we say in this House because many of us are from a different generation and we are in a different place is irrelevant to the way in which people behave out there—or, indeed, the way we behave ourselves. It is not.
Therefore, the law can never be value-free. We have somehow to build into what we are doing in this place in the next few weeks some messages about values. If we do not do so, the continuing escalation of the breakdown of the family and the undervaluing of marriage, which we all regret on both sides of the Committee, will continue. That is a difficult task, but it is one that we have to embrace.
The cardinal archbishop went on to say that the Bill has to be the starting point of deliberations on the topic, and added:
any necessary reform of the divorce law can only be part of a larger project of supporting and strengthening the institution of marriage and family life.
Written into the Bill, in terms of a practical policy and a mechanism, must be the means by which we can support and strengthen the institution of marriage and family life. It must not be only a pious aspiration.
That is a challenge for us, and it will be a challenge in Committee and on Report. In creating those practical mechanical structures for making something of reconciliation and of education and support for marriage, we need to be clear that we cannot hope to do it in this House unless we change what is on the face of the Bill.
If the Bill were to pass through the House in its present unamended form, or if it were to pass in only a marginally amended form, it would be a disaster of enormous proportions for society. In fact, it would be a disaster comparable with the child protection agency fiasco—

I shall refer to child protection in due course, because I believe that it should be written into the Bill. It would be a disaster for the Child Support Agency, and it would go beyond that in terms of its social impact.
In 1971, in the aftermath of the last great reform of divorce law, Lord Scarman said:
The law is groping its way towards a new conception of the duties of married life.
The duties of married life have been cast aside. Married life and the importance and value of marriage are being widely questioned. Marriage is undervalued, marriage is not supported, marriage is now something that one can win on a game show.
If one turns on the television on a Saturday night, one can see someone win a marriage. The young couples who walk down the pink staircase—I do not know why the staircase is not white; no doubt pink looks better on television—get more preparation for marriage, in terms of what they will get at the end, than we give them in relation to civil marriage today.
The couple I saw the other night were at least asked—as they were about to make the last step down the staircase to their honeymoon in Barbados—what one felt about the other and what one believed the other felt about them. If they got the answer right, they got the marriage and the honeymoon. They were asked whether it was respect or sexual attraction. They gave the right answer: respect—as it happened. They got some preparation.
At the moment, there is no preparation at all for civil marriage, and there is absolutely nothing on the face of the Bill to give any hope whatsoever that that will occur or is envisaged. Are we going to have any assurances about that tonight? That is something that hon. Members want to hear. We also want to look at the experience of other nations within the common law jurisdiction where no-fault divorce has been introduced. The most useful example in this regard is Australia. In 1975, no-fault divorce was introduced by a narrow margin and on a bipartisan vote—I suspect that that experience will be replicated in the House on a number of issues.
There is debate in Australia about what the figures subsequently show. Some statistics, in some forms, show that there has been an increase in marital breakdown; other statistics, in another form, show that there has been a decrease in marital breakdown. I do not see much point in arguing about those statistics.
However, we have to recognise that with that Bill came a whole raft of other proposals—including the proposal to establish the family law court and the Australian Institute of Family Studies. With that proposal came court counselling services; with that proposal came suggestions for the custody and guardianship of children to be subject to independent analysis and review by a court-based officer; with that proposal came a positive mechanism for underpinning reconciliation and supporting marriage generally.
Marriage and the family are the fundamental units of society—and this Bill is silent in that regard. If we are to pass the Bill into law—if we are to see the vote that I think we will have tonight on this issue of no fault become part of a Bill that actually addresses the crisis in marriage and the family—the Government will have to come forward with proposals in relation to reconciliation, or they will have to accept our proposals in that regard.
The Government also have to come forward with proposals in relation to preparation for marriage and with proposals that recognise the need for concerted and focused action to support the institution of marriage and the family. Only then can hon. Members rest easy in terms of the consequences of their deliberations today.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): We have heard some powerful speeches in this important debate. I confirm, for the benefit of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that we will have a genuine free vote. Government Members, and—I am pleased to hear—Labour Members, must reach their own conclusions. They must use their conscience and their judgement as to how they should vote. Undoubtedly, the Government will be divided by opinion, but not by party loyalty. The contributions of hon. Members, expressing both sides of the argument, have been very powerful.
There is common ground: the need to campaign for the institution of marriage—I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on that. I note what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) and my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said in that regard. I support their views and the need for all hon. Members to do everything possible to support the institution of marriage. It is a tragedy that two out of five marriages in this country end in divorce. All hon. Members are seeking to reduce that number.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) asked me to confirm the consequences of voting for amendment 1 and new clause 1. The Bill, as presently drafted, provides for no fault to be given as a reason for divorce, and for a one-year minimum period for reflection and consideration, with or without children.
Amendment No. 1. on which we are about to vote, is a paving amendment for new clause 1. New clause 1 provides reasons of fault—that is, unreasonable behaviour and adultery—as grounds for divorce, and there will have to be a one-year period of separation. New clause 1 also provides for divorce with consent, but no fault, after two years; and without consent, and without allegations of fault, after five years.
I confirm that, if this new clause is passed and we then come to amendment No. 7 after this vote—in the debate that is to be taken by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department—the only consequence of amendment No. 7 will be to extend to a minimum of two years if there are children, even if there is an allegation of fault, the period before divorce can take place. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are consistent with new clause 1. If new clause 1 is passed, and if amendments Nos. 7 or 8 are subsequently passed, the Government will facilitate appropriate amendments to ensure that they are consistent with the rest of the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) prayed in aid the examples in other countries, particularly the United States. I urge hon. Members to treat with some caution the statistics that are

available from other countries—from Scotland, Northern Ireland and, in particular, the United States—in arguing for or against the amendment. Circumstances are different. Provisions in the divorce law other than those relating to the minimum period, such as whether there is fault or no fault, may influence people's behaviour. In any case, I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster that, sadly, there is an upward trend in the rate of divorce throughout the western world, whatever the provisions in national legislatures concerning divorce.
I suggest to the Committee that we should take into account two important criteria in reaching a judgment tonight. First, we should ask ourselves: are the steps that we are taking in voting on clause 5—that is to say, fault or no fault—likely to reduce the rate of divorce to lower than it would otherwise be?
I cannot hold out any hope to the Committee, on behalf of the Lord Chancellor and my other right hon. and hon. Friends who have been involved in the preparation of the Bill, that in itself it will reduce the absolute number of divorces. The argument is whether the provisions in the Bill at the moment would reduce the number to lower than would otherwise be the case. The second criterion, as so many hon. Members have said, is the effect on children.
I emphasise that this debate is not about the minimum period for reflection and consideration; it is not about the minimum period before a divorce can occur. Indeed, the lengthening of the minimum period from the few months that can occur at present under our present law to a minimum of one year will, in itself, make divorce harder and send a signal to all those who are contemplating marriage—or, regrettably, contemplating divorce—that it will be harder than at present. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 lengthen that period to 24 months or 18 months respectively.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that everyone recognises that there are always faults when a marriage breaks down and when a couple look at the prospect of divorce. The issue before us tonight is not the statement of faults, which often occur on both sides and obviously must be explored through the process of reflection and consideration, through mediation and through counselling. The issue is whether the two very narrowly defined faults—adultery and intolerable behaviour—in themselves should be grounds for divorce.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle still leaves fault as an optional remedy; indeed, it is not necessary always to allege fault in order to cause a divorce under my hon. Friend's amendment, because he holds out the prospect of divorce after two years—

Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will forgive me.
He holds out the prospect of divorce after two years with consent and five years without consent, where fault is not alleged.

Sir David Mitchell: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no relationship between the question of fault or no fault and the form of the financial settlement that may follow?

Mr. Freeman: No. As my hon. Friend will know, in Committee there will be discussion of, and amendments


will be tabled concerning, the division of financial assets, but that is a separate issue. I am sure that there will be a formal detailed debate about the alleged shortcomings in present practice—that is to say, the way in which the courts take account of behaviour in the allocation of financial assets.
In the remaining few minutes, I shall try to sum up the arguments for and against fault in divorce proceedings. There were three arguments in favour of the amendment.
The first argument was that it sent a moral message—a sanction—that the reason of fault could be used by one partner against another, and my hon. Friend argued that that might stiffen people's resolve, that it would send a clear message that marriage was a lifetime's commitment. My hon. Friend would be the first to concede, however, that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge said in a powerful speech, it is not always the case that 100 per cent. of the fault is on one side. In reality, in most cases, fault is on both sides.
The second argument, advanced in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, was that of vindication. She described the situation of a middle-aged wife who had forsaken her career to support her husband, who then deserted her for a younger woman. The argument was that her ability to allege fault was a vindication and a necessary weapon, as it were, for the wronged party to use. However, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, when there is fault on both sides, much depends on who gets to the divorce lawyer first and who lodges the petition.
Thirdly, the argument has been advanced, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), that marriage is a contract, and there is no penalty if the concept of fault is removed. I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Bill, as drafted, provides for a minimum of one year for reflection and consideration. That makes the marriage contract more important than it is at present, as it is currently possible to obtain a divorce in weeks.
I shall now mention the arguments against the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell) pointed out clearly that, if one uses fault as a reason for divorce and it is only one of the grounds for divorce, one is in some ways building oneself into a confrontational escalation of the procedure. The mere fact of alleging fault and ascribing the evidence can in itself lead inevitably to the conclusion of divorce, so it can be argued that it makes reconciliation less likely.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department will explain later in other debates, at the heart of the Bill is the introduction of a new procedure of mediation, of reconciliation, of trying to save marriages after the initial process has begun—that is to say, the statement of an irretrievable breakdown. Some marriages can be saved even though proceedings have begun.
The second and final argument against amendment No. 1 advanced by some, although not shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), was about the effect on children. The Committee must ask itself tonight, what would be the effect on the children of a marriage if we reinserted into

the Bill allegations of fault, which would inevitably involve greater acrimony and hostility between the partners?
I will give way at the end of my remarks to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle the last two minutes in which to speak.
I urge in the Committee, in a free vote, to use not only its conscience but its judgment.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to all those who have spoken so movingly in this debate. I remind the Committee of the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). He reminded us that, whatever the agonies of the participants in divorce, nothing can compare with the agonies of children of divorced parents.
Of course we want to lessen acrimony, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said, what message are we sending out to young people? If we do not pass the amendment, we would send the message of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) reminded us—that the contract of marriage will be a uniquely empty one.
If I may, I shall end by paraphrasing Benjamin Jowett. It is of course true that you cannot make people moral by Act of Parliament; yet the laws and institutions of a country do make it, to a degree which it is difficult to exaggerate, either easier or harder for men and women to walk in the right way.
As we vote today, we should ask ourselves, are we really ensuring that it has sunk into the thinking of all people that, in the wonderfully telling words of the Book of Common Prayer, marriage
is not … to be … taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly"?

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 137, Noes 267.

Division No. 105]
[18.59 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Alton, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Dixon, Don


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bates, Michael
Dunn, Bob


Beggs, Roy
Eastham, Ken


Benton, Joe
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bowis, John
Evennett, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faber, David


Bright, Sir Graham
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Fishburn, Dudley


Budgen, Nicholas
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Burns, Simon
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Butcher, John
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Gale, Roger


Cash, William
Gallie, Phil


Clappison, James
Gardiner, Sir George


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gill, Christopher


Congdon, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Conway, Derek
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)






Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Grylls, Sir Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Hargreaves, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hendry, Charles
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Horam, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rogers, Allan


Jessel, Toby
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lidington, David
Spellar, John


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McAvoy, Thomas
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Macdonald, Calum
Spink, Dr Robert


McGrady, Eddie
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Steinberg, Gerry


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNamara, Kevin
Sweeney, Walter


Maginnis, Ken
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mates Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Merchant Piers
Tracey, Richard


Mills Iain
Trend, Michael


Molyneaux Rt Hon Sir James
Trimble, David


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Twinn Dr Ian


Montogomery, Sir Fergus
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Murphy, Paul
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Watts, John


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Willetts, David


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Wilshire, David


Parry, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, David (Waveney)
Yeo, Tim


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Rev. Martin Smyth and


Purchase, Ken
Mr. Robert Hughes.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burden, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burt, Alistair


Allen, Graham
Butler, Peter


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Butterfill, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Byers, Stephen


Armstrong, Hilary
Caborn, Richard


Ashby, David
Callaghan, Jim


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Barnes, Harry
Carrington, Matthew


Barron, Kevin
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Bayley, Hugh
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clapham, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Berry, Roger
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Betts, Clive
Coe, Sebastian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coffey, Ann


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blunkett, David
Corston, Jean


Boateng, Paul
Couchman, James


Boswell, Tim
Cousins, Jim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Cran, James


Brandreth, Gyles
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)





Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Dafis, Cynog
Jenkins, Brian (S.E. Staffs)


Darling, Alistair
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Denham, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dowd, Jim
Jowell, Tessa


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Khabra, Piara S


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fatchett, Derek
Kirkwood, Archy


Fisher, Mark
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Flynn, Paul
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Forman, Nigel
Knox, Sir David


Forth, Eric
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Foulkes, George
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Liddell, Mrs Helen


French, Douglas
Livingstone, Ken


Fyfe, Maria
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Galbraith, Sam
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Llwyd, Elfyn


Garnier, Edward
Loyden, Eddie


Gerrard, Neil
Luff, Peter


Gillan, Cheryl
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lynne, Ms Liz


Godsiff, Roger
McFall, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
MacKay, Andrew


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Maclennan, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
MacShane, Denis


Grocott, Bruce
Madden, Max


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mahon, Alice


Hall, Mike
Major, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Malone, Gerald


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mandelson, Peter


Hannam, Sir John
Marlow, Tony


Hanson, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Harris, David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Harvey, Nick
Maxton, John


Hawksley, Warren
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Meacher, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Michael, Alun


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Heppell, John
Miller, Andrew


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Morgan, Rhodri


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Morley, Elliot


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hodge, Margaret
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Mudie, George


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Mullin, Chris


Hoon, Geoffrey
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hoyle, Doug
Ottaway, Richard


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Page, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Paice, James


Hutton, John
Pawsey, James


Illsley, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Jack, Michael
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)






Primarolo, Dawn
Stern, Michael


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stevenson, George


Radice, Giles
Stott, Roger


Raynsford, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rendel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Timms, Stephen


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tipping, Paddy


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tredinnick, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Turner, Dennis


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Tyler, Paul


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sheerman, Barry
Walden, George


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wallace, James


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Ward, John


Short, Clare
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Simpson, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Sims, Roger
Whitney, Ray


Skinner, Dennis
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Soley, Clive
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spring, Richard



Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Peter Bottomley and


Steen, Anthony
Sir Jim Lester.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Seven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Orders [25 March and 17 April], put the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Jopling: On a point of order, Sir Geoffrey. The Committee has just had a Division in which more than 100 Conservative Members voted against the guts of the Bill. I ask the Leader of the House, who is in his place, to reconsider the Bill when things have cooled down a little. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider whether the Bill ought to be proceeded with.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That matter is not for the Chair. We must move on.

Clause 7

PERIOD FOR REFLECTION AND CONSIDERATION

Mr. Roger Sims: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 40, leave out 'first' and insert 'second'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 14, at end add—
'(9A) Where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, subsection (9D) applies if—

(a) the other party applies to the court, within the prescribed period, for time for further reflection; and
(b) the requirements of section 9 (except any imposed under section 9(3) are satisfied.


(9B) Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (9D) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen when the statement is received by the court.
(9C) Subsection (9D) does not apply if—

(a) at the time when the application for a divorce order is made, there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force in favour of the applicant, or of a child of the family, with a power of arrest attached under section 44; or
(b) the court is satisfied that delaying the making of a divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family.
(9D) If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of one year, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order.'.
Amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 14, at end add—
'(9A) Where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, subsection (9D) applies if—

(a) the other party applies to the court, within the prescribed period, for time for further reflection; and
(b) the requirements of section 9 (except any imposed under section 9(3) are satisfied.

(9B) Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (9D) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen when the statement is received by the court.
(9C) Subsection (9D) does not apply if—

(a) at the time when the application for a divorce order is made, there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force in favour of the applicant, or of a child of the family, with a power of arrest attached under section 44; or
(b) the court is satisfied that delaying the making of a divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family.

(9D) If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of six months, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order.'.
Amendment No. 17, in page 5, line 14, at end add—
'(9A) Where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, subsection (9D) applies if

(a) the other party applies to the court, within the prescribed period, for time for further reflection; and
(b) the requirements of section 9 (except any imposed under section 9(3) are satisfied.


(9B) Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (9D) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen years when the statement is received by the court.
(9C) Subsection (9D) does not apply if the court is satisfied that the case is one of exceptional hardship suffered by the applicant or of exceptional depravity on the part of the other party; but in determining the application the court must have regard to the interests of any child of the family and to the question whether there is a reasonable probability of reconciliation during the additional period mentioned in subsection (9D).
(9D) If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of one year, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order.'.
Amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 14, at end add—
'(9A) Where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, subsection (9D) applies if

(a) the other party applies to the court, within the prescribed period, for time for further reflection; and
(b) the requirements of section 9 (except any imposed under section 9(3) are satisfied.

(9B) Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (9D) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen years when the statement is received by the court.


(9C) Subsection (9D) does not apply if the court is satisfied that the case is one of exceptional hardship suffered by the applicant or of exceptional depravity on the part of the other party; but in determining the application the court must have regard to the interests of any child of the family and to the question whether there is a reasonable probability of reconciliation during the additional period mentioned in subsection (9D)
(9D) If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of six months, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order.'.
Clause 7 stand part.

Mr. Sims: The amendments to which amendment No. 3 is linked refer to the period that should elapse between a statement of intention to divorce being lodged and the divorce itself. On Second Reading—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members should leave the Chamber quietly—and I ask the hon. Members who are holding a sub-committee in the right-hand corner of the Chamber to hold it somewhere else.

Mr. Sims: On Second Reading, I supported the Bill's proposal for a period of consideration, so that mediation and reconciliation, if possible, can take place before divorce is finalised. I shall listen to hon. Members who propound arguments in support of the other amendments, as to whether 12 months or a longer period would be appropriate. I want to go further back in the process, and I invite the Committee to consider how soon after a couple have married they should be permitted, to use the language of the Bill, to make
a statement of marital breakdown".
7.15 pm
It is common ground among hon. Members that the family is the foundation of our society, and that the basis of the family is marriage. Of course two people can live together and produce children without any civil or religious ceremony having taken place—the state cannot prevent that—but a couple's public commitment to each other in a religious or civil marriage ceremony must surely add to the stability of their relationship to the benefit of the man and the woman, the children of the marriage and society.
Ideally, such a commitment should be lifelong, not only on religious grounds—promises made before almighty God should be inviolable—but because it must be in the interests of a stable society that marriage be permanent. We must acknowledge that sometimes, with the best will in the world, things do not work out and the marriage breaks down. If it is desirable for the state to have a formal, public procedure for marriage, there should be a formal, public procedure to enable a couple who feel that their marriage has broken down to break that contract—and to do so as far as possible on mutually acceptable terms, with appropriate arrangements with regard to property and, especially, children. The Bill is all about doing that, and we have been debating and will continue to debate the best way for procedures to be followed.
When framing legislation, it is important to consider—to use the expression that has been employed a number of times this afternoon—the messages that the Committee is

sending about the institution of marriage and its status. Our legislation should surely be saying how important and solemn is the undertaking into which a couple enter on marriage, and how important and solemn is the breaking of the marriage contract.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend raises an enormously important point. Does he agree that, for a variety of benevolent motives, we have over years unpicked the vast majority of the secular benefits of being married, so that, when people enter into a solemn marriage, the state's investment in that relationship is a great deal less than it used to be?

Mr. Sims: I cannot dispute that point—in fact, I strongly agree with my hon. Friend—but I fear that if I were to go into the matters behind his intervention, I would quite properly be ruled out of order. God forbid that that should happen to me, a member of the Chairmen's Panel.
If we were to say that, if a couple have married, there can be no question of divorce for 10 years, that would certainly demonstrate the importance of the commitment, but I fear that it might be seen as a deterrent to marriage. If, on the other hand, it was suggested that we should tell people that they can get married and, if it does not work out, be divorced in three months, we would surely oppose that on the ground that it would devalue the institution of marriage. So what should be the minimum period between a wedding taking place and the point at which a statement of intention to divorce can be lodged? What length of time would be reasonable and practicable and yet at the same time demonstrate the seriousness of the marriage vows?
Before the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, that period was three years, which I suggest is about right, but that Bill sought to reduce the period to one year. I opposed that proposal and sought a compromise of two years. Despite my arguments and my vote, the period on the face of the Act is one year. That is now the minimum period.
We have asked the question so often, but it is appropriate—what messages does that convey to the sort of young people about whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) spoke so eloquently in the previous debate? Are we not telling people, in effect, that, if they are thinking of marriage, they can give it a go, but they should not worry if it does not work out because, in 12 months' time, they can get out of it? Are we saying that marriage can be entered into on a trial basis rather than for life? All of us who have been married will know that the first year can be difficult, especially if a baby arrives. To allow the lodging of divorce petition after one year, as now, seems to me to be to allow it far too soon.
Whatever other changes will be made by the present Bill, it still proposes that that one-year period shall remain. That is enshrined in clause 7(6), which reads:
A statement which is made before the first anniversary of the marriage to which it relates is ineffective for the purposes of any application for a divorce order.
The effect of my amendment would be to replace the word "first" with the word "second". I believe that that would give a more appropriate period. If my amendment were passed, a couple who are contemplating marriage will know that, if they proceed, at least two years must elapse before they can embark on divorce proceedings. As the


Bill now stands, there would then be a further 12 months for reflection and consideration, making three years in all. If the amendments with which mine is grouped were passed, that period of reflection could be extended for a further six or 12 months. Whatever the views of the Committee on the other amendments, I hope it will accept the arguments that I have adduced and support my amendment.

Mr. Soley: I am sorry to have missed the opening of the debate, but I was chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I regard this subject as very important, because I have spent much of my working life working with families who have been in trouble for one reason or another, frequently because relationships have broken down. I am very much in favour of arbitration and conciliation, and that is why I support the general thrust of the Bill. I am not, however, generally in favour of extending the length of time before it is possible to get a divorce.
I am not as worried about amendment No. 3 as I was about amendment No. 1, because I believe that bringing fault into divorce immediately puts children in the firing line of the battle. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) made that point powerfully and I am pleased that the amendment was thrown out. However, there are a number of contradictions here. If it is the view of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) that we should make it more difficult for couples to separate, and tell people who are about to marry not to marry without a lot of thought, because, if they do they cannot undo it easily, that is a reasonable position and I understand it, but that course is likely to increase the number of people who choose to live together outside marriage.
I do not mind that—there is something to be said for people living together outside marriage to see whether their relationship works before they make a longer-term commitment by having children. For me, the crucial issue is the welfare of the children, and we should never lose sight of that factor. I would not mind an increase in the number of people living together, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might not want that to happen.
I have been struck by the number of times that states or Governments—of the left and right—that have tried to intervene to dictate social relationships between people, have nearly always failed to achieve their aim. People make relationships because of the quality of those relationships. If a relationship does not work, those involved will separate. The problem that we have to face is that, if children are involved in a relationship that does not work, it is very painful for them. The ending of a close relationship is also painful for adults, but it is the children on whom we must focus and for whom we should have most concern.
That brings me to another point, which was mentioned at the end of the previous debate and which the hon. Member for Chislehurst mentioned. We make a fundamental mistake if we assume that a marriage is the same as a family. It is not. Families predate marriage by thousands of years. Marriage is a relatively recent innovation. That does not mean that I am against marriage. If people wish to marry, it is important that the state, the Church or any other organisation involved makes the experience positive and pleasant for them. If people wish to marry, the experience should be an

important one for which they make preparation. If the Churches are worried about the divorce rate, they should provide more preparation.
If people do not want to marry, the state should not moralise, find fault or blame. Many people—of whom I am one—live outside marriage. I can tell hon. Members that my children are perfectly happy, they are quite well brought up and we are perfectly happy as a family and as individuals. Many of my constituents, and many other people in the country, live in exactly the same sort of relationship. I would not seek to impose on people who are married a moral code for the structure of their relationship and I ask only that they do not seek to impose on me a structure that I am not willing to accept.

Dame Jill Knight: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. He said at the beginning of his speech that, if the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) were adopted, it would put people off getting married and they would live together. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he has just said that he sees nothing wrong with a decision to live together outside marriage. The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing from both sides at the same time. Will he clarify his argument a little?

Mr. Soley: I am saying that, when the state, through Parliament in this instance, tries to legislate on these matters, there are many unintended consequences. If we make it difficult for divorce to take place, people will vote with their feet. They are likely—I put it no higher than that—to do one of two things. The first is that they will choose to live with a partner outside marriage rather than marry first. I do not mind if that happens, but I gather that some people do.
The second is that, when a marriage breaks up and it is necessary for the partners to wait a long time for a divorce—let us assume that there is no doubt that the marriage has ended and neither party is looking for reconciliation—one or both will enter into another relationship and live with that person. That is a common background. If we make people wait three, four or five years for a divorce, more people will live in sin, if that is the phrase that people choose to use.
I am merely setting out the possible unintended consequences of legislation. That does not trouble me too much—I am much more worried about the quality of relationships in people's lives and the way in which we support the family post marriage, including children.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman has said twice that, if it is made difficult to get a divorce, people will be less inclined to marry. That is not true. Until the second half of the century, it was extremely difficult to get divorced. In the previous century, it was necessary to secure one's own Act of Parliament, for heaven's sake. That did not put people off getting married. Only recently has divorce been made easier; before that happened, people married willingly.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Lady is right. If she listens, she will hear what I have to say about the matters that she has raised. I merely say that those who support the amendment should understand that there will be


unintended consequences if it is adopted. The consequences will not be quite what they expect. As I have said, from my standpoint I am relatively relaxed about the amendment. I advance my arguments in that context.
The problem is that marriage has come to be seen as a passport to happiness. It is assumed that getting married is a good thing—"You will be happy, you can have children and you will be a good parent." Those things do not follow automatically. There is evidence that many young people—I think that I will take hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber with me in this instance—have seen marriage as something of a celebration, almost to the point of its being a party, without necessarily thinking through the longer-term consequences of having children and living together.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: One of my hon. Friend's most telling observations is that many people enter marriage ill prepared. Surely the task is to make the preparation for this most intimate of relationships much more effective. That involves many voluntary organisations, such as Churches, apart from the state.

Mr. Soley: That is absolutely right. I shall say something about the registering of children, which we tend to ignore. As I have said, my hon. Friend is right.
Not so long ago, one of my constituents telephoned to complain bitterly that the vicar would not marry her. Hon. Members do not often receive such calls. In any event, I intervened to find out why the vicar was not prepared to marry the lady. He said, "She does not understand that it is not just an excuse for a party." He wanted to make preparation available and she was saying, "I want a party. I have been brought up to believe that getting married is a good thing to do. I will be happy and have children." Someone like me was saying, "Marriage does not equal happiness. Similarly, it does not equal being a good parent. It is much more complex than that." We should be focusing on that.
Divorce rates are high and, in my judgment, they will remain so, primarily for economic reasons. There are, of course, other factors. People are living longer and children become independent. People are divorced at different stages and at different ages nowadays.
In my parents' generation, parents stayed together in loveless marriages. They were bitterly unhappy. It was tragic watching people of my parents' generation locked together in loveless, unhappy marriages. They felt that, because the state had said that they should not get divorced, they had to continue living in that way. I saw many sad elderly people who missed so much in life after their children left home. The same was true of people who did not have children. They, too, were locked into loveless, unhappy marriages. We have no right to impose that sort of life on people through a social code that does not fit with the experience of real life.
If the Government wanted to do something about reducing the divorce rate, they would have to change the role of women. They would have to make women much more dependent on men's earnings once more, so that it would be difficult for them to leave. That will not happen. In a strange way, there is an element of reversal.
Men, especially in some of the old heavy industry areas, are now much more dependent on women than hitherto. They are not especially useful as parents, because they were brought up in the macho culture of building ships or digging coal, for example. They suddenly find that they have no role in life because they have no job. They have had no preparation for parenthood, so what use are they to a woman? It is a real problem. It is why we find a fairly high number of single-parent women living in some of the old heavy industry areas. That is also why, in south Wales—many of us would not have believed this some years ago—close to 50 per cent. of the main carers of children at home are men. A fundamental and radical change has taken place in other parts of the country as well.
Before coming to this place, I was a probation officer. I worked with damaged and, at times, extremely violent families. I worked also with families that came to see me because the divorce court or the family court had asked that that should happen. Three things can be done when a family or a marriage is in difficulty. I say "marriage" advisedly, but I am talking about two people living together in that situation.
First, I could say, "You can stay as you are and not do anything about the situation, in which case I can guarantee that you will probably continue to be unhappy together." Secondly, I could say, "You can separate. If you choose to do that you should separate in the least painful way for you and to the children if any are involved." Thirdly, I could say, "You can attempt reconciliation or conciliation." The third option is an important one and it is one that the Bill takes on board, which is why I welcome the relevant part of it.
Of the three broad philosophies that I have outlined, the most damaging one is that people should stay together when they are not able to change an unhappy relationship, believing that they are doing so because they should, or for the good of the children. If parents are staying together unhappily, they are almost certainly not performing well as parents. That does not mean that people should automatically divorce and separate; it means that it is not possible to be a good parent, or as good as one would like to be, if the relationship with one's main partner in life involves much friction and fighting. That is especially true if there is violence. That is the worst and most damaging scene.
Some of the most damaged clients with whom I worked as a probation officer—I worked with some extremely violent offenders—came from families where the father was coming and going and violent and the mother was ambivalent about the relationship, switching love on and off. If we perpetuate such relationships—they often were perpetuated—we produce very disturbed children.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: When there is severe violence in a family, no one would suggest that the children might not be better off in a different situation, but all the research that has been undertaken to date shows extremely clearly that children are better off when their parents are still together, even unhappily, than when they are divorced. They are better off in terms of their health and education and every other factor. Virtually every organisation that deals with children says that.

Mr. Soley: I have to dispute that. I could list many organisations that work with children which would


dispute that view. The research does not prove the case one way or the other, not least because it is hard to do the research reliably.
The research, including that which supports my case, normally relies on small samples, often does not compare like with like and does not take into account all the many and varied factors that affect these situations. What I am concentrating on—and what I ask the hon. Lady, who I know cares deeply about this, to concentrate on—is the quality of the relationship. We should focus on that. Where a relationship is not working, we should help it to work. That is the advantage of conciliation—it does not need to have a time limit; it can be one year, three years or one month—and people will go for it if it is available and they want to make the relationship work.
If, for whatever reason, people do not want to make the relationship work, we can wait one or 10 years, but the chances are that they will not come for conciliation. If we try to make them come, the chances are that it will not work. It must be voluntary—that is the only way to make it happen.

Mrs. Peacock: The hon. Gentleman is obviously considering the children in any broken marriage—we would all want to do that. What protection can he envisage being given to a mother who takes the children away, perhaps from a violent situation, and gets a live-in boyfriend? They are not his children and what happens is—I have quite a few cases of this, although I am not a lawyer—that the violence restarts and the children suffer twice: they go through a second stage of violence at the hands of someone who is almost unknown.

Mr. Soley: I am worried about the amount of time that I am taking up, but I want to deal with that point towards the end of my comments.

Mr. Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: Yes, and then I had better get on.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. One of the great turn-offs for people seeking help with their marriages is that it is often provided by people from a different social background from their own. Does he agree that there is a huge opportunity out there for an explosion in what I call mentoring, by people who have time on their hands and who have been through rearing children and can give support and comfort?

Mr. Soley: A host of important groups do not receive support and can give the type of support that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of. I would widen it to other family issues.
On the divorce rate, some hon. Members hark back to a golden age that never existed. There will be no repeat of the past because the economy, the role of women and a number of other things in that respect have changed.
I want to be a bit more positive. In the period of reconciliation, be it one year or three, we must ensure that reconciliation and arbitration are available, well resourced and provided by suitably qualified people. Otherwise, it becomes meaningless. It would be especially wrong to have a law that said that couples must consider

reconciliation first and then under-resource the service so that, when they tried to use it, it was of poor quality or inadequate. That would be the worst of all things.
I say to hon. Members who support the amendment—I am sure that I carry the hon. Member for Chislehurst, who moved it, with me; I hope that I carry also one or two of the hon. Ladies who intervened—that, if they pass the amendment, they must ensure that they vote for the money to go with it. If they do not make it work, they will be giving people false hopes of what can be achieved. I want to make reconciliation available.
My last two points are also about children and the family. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) made an important point. One thing is lacking in all the debate—it has been lacking in the political debate in Britain for many years: family policy. There is no family policy in this country worth the name. Government Departments do not liaise and co-ordinate with each other or with local authorities. There is no liaison with the private sector. Because there is no family policy, we put families into positions in which they are likely to break down.
I shall give just one simple example, but it is dear to my heart. If homeless families with young children are put in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or high-rise flats, parenting problems are produced. Even the best parent cannot bring up kids in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and will get frustrated with kids under their feet in a high-rise flat. Many of them will let them play outside unsupervised and then everyone is surprised when graffiti, violence and crime grow.
I must mention another important lesson to all hon. Members. We are quick—the tabloid press is especially bad—to damn someone who has been through everlasting hell and who has been caught being cruel to children, or vicious or brutal. I agree—I have no problem condemning people for cruel behaviour, but we hardly ever pay attention to the fact that the causation of that is often a breakdown in parenting, and often violent parenting.
7.45 pm
It was interesting that, in the case of Dunblane, we were all quick, understandably and rightly, to say, "What a wicked act." We also ignored the fact that the man who killed in Dunblane was not only abandoned by his father when he was very young, which happens to many others, but brought up to believe that his mother was his sister. We did not intervene. We did not do anything. We had no policies.
I could produce a hundred and one cases where the whole nation is deeply sympathetic to the child who is battered, brutalised and badly treated or who is not given the love and consistent care that he requires. Fifteen years later—I have seen the pattern in my working life as a probation officer—that person is up in court for some violent action and everyone is damning him to hell and back, but we did not intervene when we could have done, because of the lack of a family policy.
On the final important point, people sometimes say to me, "It is all very well saying that marriage and the family are different. I understand and accept that, but is there not one thing that makes the marriage aspect special? Marriage is about legitimising the couple's position with children." Sadly, it is not. The real thing that legitimises


the position with children is the couple's registering of the child in their name. The mother and father's registering of the child is the important act, as they accept responsibility for the welfare of the child. It is one of the most important acts; unfortunately, there is no ceremony for it.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen, we do not even develop the system differently so that a person who moves into a family where there are children by a previous marriage has some mechanism by which he or she can take on responsibility without full adoption, which might not be wanted by other party. We do not allow them even to register it in a meaningful way.

Mr. Spearing: The Committee has listened to a sincere and important speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real opportunity for expressing responsibility, and for society to take responsibility for children, happens at the point of marriage, when the partners are perhaps looking towards children and their responsibility for them—society has a responsibility in that respect as well—and towards each other? Is not that the answer to his question, "What is marriage about?"

Mr. Soley: Yes, but that is why I said in my opening comments that, for people who want to get married, marriage is profoundly important. If people want to get married, that ceremony is not only important to them, but should be made attractive to, and important for, the Church and the state, but we should not assume that it equals happiness or that everyone wants to do it.
We must understand that marriage is different from family, from being a good parent and, above all, from a happy family. There are plenty of good parents who are not married. Plenty of societies before ours never even heard of the word "marriage" before it was invented 2,000 years ago—or whenever it was invented. Let us not forget that they were good parents and good families.
I have no objection to the Church taking this on board, but it must stand on its own feet and not use the family as though people must necessarily get into the family or can become a good parent only by the marriage route. They can do it through a number of other routes. Registering children is important.
I apologise for going on for longer than I intended. Although the amendment would be nowhere near as harmful as amendment No. 1 would have been, my general approach would be to keep the period fairly short, emphasise arbitration and conciliation, and make sure that resources are available for it. We should not worry too much about the period we lay down in law. It is not that important. What matters above all is more support for families and parenting, and the existence of a family and parenting policy. Moreover, it is vital to register children in the name of the parent: in that way, parents undertake to society to be responsible for those children.

Mr. Leigh: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 7 and 8. At this point, we must decide how long it takes to conclude that a marriage has broken down irretrievably. Like many other people, I believe that a year is not long enough. My view is shared by most people in Scotland, where 63 per cent. of divorces take more than two years,

and by most people in Northern Ireland, where 75 per cent. of divorces take more than two years. It takes even longer to divorce in other European countries.
My view is also shared by most members of the public. Most respondents to the MORI poll to which I referred in an earlier debate supported the present two-year period for separation with consent, although they felt that the five-year period for separation without consent should be shortened to four years. Interestingly, those who supported the concept of no-fault divorce favoured an average period of 20 months. There is a good deal of support for my amendments from all sections of the community—not least from Cardinal Hume, former Chief Rabbi Jakobovitz, the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of London, Chester and Chichester.
Amendment No. 7 would extend the waiting period to two years; amendment No. 8 would extend it to 18 months. A number of safeguards are provided in regard to children. The waiting period would be only one year if both parties consent to divorce, and if there are no children of the marriage. It could be shortened to one year—but not less—if there is a clear case of domestic violence, with a court order and power of arrest under part IV of the Bill, or if the court concludes that to extend the period beyond a year would be detrimental to the children. Those are clearly special cases.
The amendment is itself a compromise. I know that at least one of my hon. Friends will not vote for the amendments, because he believes that there should be no exceptions. We decided, however, that support for the amendment would be maximised if we extended the period beyond a year, but provided for exceptions—for instance, clear cases of harm to children or violence to a spouse. Let us leave those exceptions aside, however. If the Committee agrees one or other of the amendments, it will send the important message that, if there are children in a marriage, that should make a difference to the divorce process. In such circumstances, the parties should think not just of themselves but of the interests of the children.
How long a period is needed in which to prove that a marriage has broken down irretrievably? "Irretrievably" is a word of great finality: it means that there can be no turning back. Under the Bill, once a divorce order has been made that is it. Under the existing legislation, a number of people do turn back—between 20,000 and 30,000—and we want to give those people a chance. We know from the results of various polls that 50 per cent. of men and 28 per cent. of women regret divorcing, and that—interestingly—10 per cent. of both men and women regret divorcing each other. That is extraordinary, given that everyone agrees that divorce damages society as a whole.
I suppose that, if both parties want to divorce from the start, there will be little chance of reconciliation, but there must be some chance, and there must be a much greater chance if one party does not want to divorce. Should we not make a distinction between divorces that involve consent and divorces that do not? In that way, we would promote reconciliation.
Other European Union jurisdictions that do not have the concept of no-fault divorce make such a distinction. In Germany, it is possible to divorce after a year if there is consent, but if there is not consent the parties must wait for three years. In Spain, it is possible to divorce after one year if there is consent, but the parties must wait for two years if there is not, and there must be a two-year


separation. In France, it is possible to secure a no-fault divorce after only nine months, but if there is no consent the parties must wait for six years. It seems that other European Union countries that have introduced no-fault legislation recognise that, if there is no consent, there should be a considerable difference in the waiting time.
Under the Bill—unless it is amended in the way that I propose—a spouse who may have been married for a long time cannot possibly signal his or her objection to divorce. It makes no difference: the divorce will go through within a year. I consider the amendments sensible and moderate; they are certainly in line with what other jurisdictions have proposed.
A practical point is also involved. Again, we should consider what is happening in other countries. Surely, if one party does not agree to a divorce, it may take rather longer to sort out what lawyers call the ancillaries—matters involving children and property, for instance. Under schedule 1—I discussed this earlier with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—if one spouse is deemed by the court to be obstructive, the court can impose an agreement.
Of course, it is possible that the partner who does not want a divorce is not being obstructive; complicated matters may be involved. Children, and future children, give rise to complicated matters, which may take a long time to consider. For those reasons—certainly if children are involved—we should allow more time. That is not just my view; I think that, in a funny sort of way, it is also the view of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I understand that he told a meeting of, I think, the Conservative Family Campaign that the median time for divorce was 14 months. If I have misquoted him, I hope that he will correct me; I heard that at secondhand.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I have always made it clear that the median time is currently seven months. The latest statistics, which are due to be published shortly, confirm that.

Mr. Leigh: I am sorry: I was obviously given wrong information. But my hon. Friend is not the only person who is alleged to have said that: Lord Justice Ackner, a considerable authority on such matters, told the other place that in his view, in the ordinary course of events where there are children involved or where there is resistance to divorce it takes a good 18 months to achieve a divorce. That is in column 628 of Hansard.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the rule that does not allow Members to quote from debates in the other place unless they are quoting ministerial statements.

Mr. Leigh: I was deliberately paraphrasing because I was aware of that rule. I did not read out the entire statement. I do not know how Hansard will deal with that—whether it will paraphrase my paraphrase or report the entire quotation. We shall have to wait and see. In any case, to paraphrase Lord Justice Ackner, it is his view that, in the normal course of events, it takes 18 months if there is a dispute or if children are involved. If people are arguing that waiting really damages children, why is there no uproar about the different waiting times in Germany, France or Scotland?
8 pm
In debating these amendments, we could argue about making arrangements for the future. Under existing law, a person can get a decree absolute just six weeks after the decree nisi but he cannot get any final orders on lump sums or property transfers until the decree absolute. In reality, arguments are mainly about ancillaries. As we established in the previous debate, there are only four or five divorce trials every year. People argue about how to divide the assets, but people can continue arguing about the ancillaries long after they are effectively divorced. Expert barristers in this field have confirmed to me that it can often take more than a year.
Under the Bill, everything has to be settled before the divorce is completed. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, it is therefore possible to delay the period beyond a year but, as I said to him—I think that this is what will happen—there will be an expectation under the Bill that the period for achieving a divorce will be a year.
Even if hon. Members do not support my wish to extend the period to two years, there is a very strong case indeed for extending it to 18 months. That idea is confirmed by various academics. Peter Duckworth, a leading practitioner in divorce legislation, wrote to me. As he is not a Member of the other place I think that I am allowed to quote him. He said:
If there were a genuine breathing space of 12 months before steps were taken to end a marriage, then I would be prepared to believe that many marriages would be saved. But that is not on offer.
Instead what is proposed is a radical alteration from present law, whereby you cannot obtain substantive orders for ancillary relief before decree nisi, to a situation where all the relevant financial orders not only can but must be made before the divorce, even if in general they will not take effect until afterwards. Translated into practical terms, it is my view that these proposals will eliminate any realistic prospect of reconciliation within the 12 month period, for the simple reason that parties will be so preoccupied with sorting out their children and property that they will have no time to think.
In many if not most cases, arrangements for children and money require complex and detailed negotiation. While the Children Act 1989 permits residence and contact arrangements to be settled out of court, the same is not true of money and property orders which need the finality of a court order under the 1973 Act".
Peter Duckworth knows what he is talking about—he is a practitioner in this sphere. He is telling the Committee that, unless we extend the period beyond 12 months, there is a real possibility that we shall not get the kind of reconciliation process which I know the Opposition spokesman is so determined to include in the Bill.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am listening to my hon. Friend with great care. Were the period to be, say, two years. does he think that the time for reconciliation would be before people reached agreement on ancillary matters, after they had done so or at the same time?

Mr. Leigh: If one of the amendments were passed and the period were extended to 18 months or two years, I suggest that early in the process there would effectively be a litigation-free zone. Such a period, which is similar to what the Opposition spokesman is arguing for, would be built into the Bill. It would occur early in the divorce process, before people were allowed to start arguing about assets or what to do about the children and before mediators arrived to determine or advise on such matters. The time after a partner had lodged a statement of marital difficulty would be devoted to reconciliation.
My argument and that of Peter Duckworth is that, if the period is as short as 12 months, it is simply impossible to have a meaningful period of reconciliation—there is not enough time because there is so much to sort out. If children are involved and if there is not consent to the divorce, reconciliation will not be effective.
A final problem with the Bill, if not amended in the way that I am suggesting, is that permanent arrangements could be in place within three months of the beginning of the process. In theory, everything could be agreed within three months. Were that to happen, one would effectively be divorced within three months although, in practice, one could not remarry for 12 months.
If a woman wanted to eject her husband from the marital home—it is usually that way around—it could be done early in the process, especially if there were an allegation of domestic violence. A lawyer could be obtained to settle these matters quickly and one could effectively be divorced within three months. I know that that is not what the Under-Secretary wants, but often what Ministers want, as we have seen in previous divorce legislation, is not what happens after the courts have interpreted or re-interpreted the legislation.
Ruth Deech has already been cited once or twice in this debate. She is a good person to cite in this instance because she has apparently always opposed us on everything else and so cannot be accused of being a Conservative party stooge. She is, after all, the principal of St. Ann's college, Oxford and a very distinguished lady. In the context of what I am about to read out, it is important to note that she is a woman. She wrote:
Our ancillary relief is already a vengeful process and is based on the premise that all husbands should maintain their wives regardless of conduct, and regardless of her ability to keep herself. The pressure to settle in twelve months will make it worse in every respect.
Mediators will perforce lend themselves to this process of settling everything regardless of justice within 12 months. The wife who is reliant on Legal Aid will be at the mercy of the mediation process whereas the husband who can afford to pay a lawyer will be able to use ancillary relief for his own ends. Will mediators be able to tell wives about pension-splitting, the effects of the Child Support Agency, mortgage relief, intestacy law, joint bank accounts, etc? It is not surprising that where there is any money at all, ancillary matters can take more than 12 months.
That is a powerful point. Before hon. Members consider voting down the sensible amendments, which are themselves very much a compromise, I hope that they will consider what Ruth Deech said in her letter to me.
Writing in The Independent, Polly Toynbee said that the break-up of a marriage should be a cause for celebration. I do not think that most hon. Members would agree with that. Children want their parents to stay together. We would wholly reject any amendment that would reduce the waiting time to less than 12 months. Public opinion supports us on keeping parents together, and the verdicts of other jurisdictions in Europe also support what I am suggesting.
My view and that of many people who practise in this field is that one year is simply too short a time where children are involved or where there is a dispute. I urge the Committee to accept my amendments.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I find the arguments proposed by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle

(Mr. Leigh) quite compelling. It is in that spirit that I and the right hon. Member for Barkston Ash—he is my right hon. Friend in this matter—tabled amendments Nos. 17 and 18, which would achieve the same aim. My remarks will be brief as much of the background was covered in the previous debate in which I was not with the hon. Gentleman for the reasons that I gave.
There is broad agreement on the principles set out in part I of the Bill and on the notion that divorce is extremely costly, not only to the individuals involved and their children but to the state. There is also clear agreement that there should be some restriction on divorce in the early years of marriage. To that extent, I wholeheartedly concur with amendment No. 3, which was so ably moved by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). The question therefore is one of judgment—how long should the restriction last and in what circumstances should it be abridged? It was with those objectives in mind that I and—for these purposes—my right hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash made our own stab in response to the Minister's invitation to use his Department's resources in that respect.
I looked at the established principle—the formulation that was in being when I was called to the Bar in 1969. At that time, a petition could only be presented within three years of marriage if the court was satisfied that the case was one of exceptional hardship suffered by the applicant or exceptional depravity on the part of the other party. I had a word on that with the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), who thought that the word "depravity" very considerably appealed to him. The right hon. Member for Barkston Ash and I thought that, effectively, the formulation that we had proposed was not only more general, but had an established body of case law behind it and judgment on it, and could therefore be well understood.
I must confess that, having looked more carefully at the formulation and having reflected on the matter, especially in the light of the criticisms of it in pages 12 to 15 of the Law Commission's 1982 report, No. 116, "Time Restrictions on the Presentation of Divorce and Nullity Petitions", I have come to the view that that proposed by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle is infinitely preferable. I shall briefly explain why.
The time-hallowed formulation, which included the remarkable word "depravity", had in practice proved quite difficult. It encouraged, if not ensured, that the particulars had to be made very unpleasant to bring the applicant within its terms. Setting out the case under it caused immense distress and humiliation. It led to very subjective judgments throughout the country, and, in effect, exaggerated the adversarial element. The task was therefore to find a formula that avoided those drawbacks, but which was simple, comprehensive and did not add further to the conflict between parties.
I wholly adopt the arguments of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. The proposed formula will not encourage further conflict when, for example, the case has already been before the court and there is a relevant non-molestation order. If there had been conflict, it would have been litigated previously and the court would have come to a decision in that respect. His formulation is simple, and using the phrase that has been used before, it gives all the right messages and signals.
The key question is therefore one of time. As a former practitioner who, certainly in the 1970s and early 1980s, practised in this field, I well accept what the legal adviser to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said. There needs to be more than one year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), whose attitude to the Bill has been to emphasise the key need for adequate time and facilities for reconciliation, will make those aspects a matter of public policy. I hope that, when the Bill is in Standing Committee, the Government will be prepared to look very carefully at reconciliation.
There is also the question of resources. If the Government are really keen on reconciliation, adequate resources must be made available. The point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) must be addressed. Those who are in the business of counselling must be broadly from the same social class as those who need the counselling.
In Chinese society, there was always an Auntie Wu in the village to whom people went when things were not going right. Rather than lawyers and people who will tell one about pension splitting, and so on, one needs an Auntie Wu from whatever particular group of society one comes—someone who has gone through the process herself, who perhaps has children, understands life and can help young couples who have embarked on marriage too early and without adequate preparation—with whom one can talk through problems.
In the waiting period—two years or 18 months instead of one year—there has to be a two-stage process. There must be adequate time before the lawyers get involved, when those with experience of life are able to talk in a very open way in a language that the young people will understand. I repeat to the Minister that the process must be well resourced. Thereafter, if matters do not work out, only at that stage should the detailed question of children and the family assets be addressed. That will be in one sense necessary only if the key and first stage of the process is not successful.
8.15 pm
In my judgment, adequate time must be found. On reflection, and with the full concurrence of my right hon. Friend—for this purpose—the Member for Barkston Ash, we are convinced that our formulation is less simple and less relevant to the argument that we seek to address. Given those qualifications, and with total confidence that in Standing Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South will prevail and triumph in his views on reconciliation, I shall not be pressing the amendments that I have tabled and will give full support to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) only put one foot wrong in his admirable speech—in describing me as the right hon. Member for Barkston Ash. It does not matter, but for the sake of the record, I am now the right hon. Member for Selby.
It was extremely reassuring to hear the introduction of the, to me, strange phenomenon of Auntie Wu. It made me think that perhaps you, Dame Janet, are the incarnation of Auntie Wu—or the nearest we can get to such a person in these highly tendentious and pressured proceedings and the great difficulties facing us all in matters of conscience and

decision making. Somebody is in the Chair to whom we know that we can instinctively go and never a cross word will be uttered. Perhaps the same applies to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson). I wish that we had more Auntie Wus knocking around this place. As a former parliamentary private secretary to Lady Thatcher, I know exactly what I am talking about in terms of the desirability of having such marvellous Aunt figures. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for opening up a whole new dimension.
On the basis of that commendation of you, Dame Janet, I trust that I shall be able to talk about almost anything I wish for any length of time. I want to dot the i's and cross the t's of the admirable speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) made—behind whom the hon. Member for Swansea, East and I now row in complete harmony—by pointing out once again to my hon. Friend the Minister the extent to which the Government already seem to have taken the essential point that we are trying to argue about the time parameters.
Here again, I refer to the mysterious document which has fallen into the hands of most Members of Parliament. It obviously has its provenance in the Lord Chancellor's office and gives guidance of an authoritative, well printed and vivid kind to Members of Parliament. I refer to the "Key Points" heading in the document and I quote from the third paragraph:
The Bill will … allow a divorce to be granted only when couples have settled the arrangements for their children, and the division of property and finances. This can take up to two years".
So the briefing says that the procedures can take up to two years, which is the very time frame referred to in the amendment.
At the bottom of the page, reference is made to first marriages. The briefing says:
The Bill will retain the current bar on divorce in the first year of marriage. Couples will need to have been married for a minimum of two years before they can get divorced.
Here again is the suggestion that a minimum of two years applies before married couples can get divorced. How easily and naturally the currency of the time frame for which the Government have argued slips into periods well beyond the 12 months to which they have referred as the basic period.
I now quote from the annexe to this splendid document which has been circulated to Members of Parliament. The paragraph is headed, "Period for Making Arrangements", and it states:
Secondly the period people will have in which to decide their arrangements prior to divorce will be extended from 18 months to a maximum of 2 years, so that people may take a little longer, if they need it, to do this.
A passage in parenthesis says:
The 12 month period for reflection on whether the marriage can be saved and consideration of the arrangements for a life apart, which is also set out in the Bill, has always been a minimum period. It has always been thought that many people will in practice need longer than this in order to decide the arrangements and thereby be able to proceed to obtain a divorce order.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: We are wondering just what the document is. I understand that it is a Conservative central office document. As it is being


used somewhat fully in this debate, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could ensure that it is put into the Library so that we can all see it.

Mr. Alison: I am sorry to tell the hon. Lady that this may be a case of going to Auntie Wu. There is no imprint on the document and I cannot tell the Committee where it comes from. All I can say is that it has the clarity, articulateness and elegance of prose which suggests that it has its provenance in lofty official circles.
I can say without hesitation that the natural currency of references to time frames in the briefing document, which sets out broadly to make the case for the Government, keeps slipping into a suggestion that the 12-month rule is the minimum and that in many practical ways 18 months is more natural for most people. It suggests that the two-year rule will apply to first marriages and that the so-called minimum period is more for guidance and suggestion than anything else.
I hope that, on the basis of the prior indications of flexibility, my hon. Friend the Minister will see the merits of crystallising substantively the inclination which seems to be lurking in the Government's subconscious—or perhaps conscious—predisposition. The Minister would solve many people's problems tonight by accepting at least one—perhaps the longer—of the two amendments, amendment No. 7, which contains the time frame references to which my hon. Friends have so admirably referred.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) commended the amendment, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), because it focused on the importance of marriage rather on the breaking of marriage as, alas, the Bill has to do. In that respect, the amendment has something in common with amendment No. 1, which we discussed before the Division. I sensed that those who were in favour of amendment No. 1 wanted to ensure that the concept of fault emphasised the importance of marriage itself.
I thought that there were distinct disadvantages in that amendment and I did not vote for it. I do not, however, see many disadvantages—indeed, I do not see any—in amendments Nos. 3, 7, 8, 17 and 18. Surely one of our problems in this debate is that, understandably, we are talking about the law on the breaking of marriage and not about the law on making and sustaining marriage. Many people have referred to that understandable imbalance in our debate. This is a debate in which party makes no difference. Can Members of Parliament entirely estrange the two concepts? I would have thought not.
That point was exemplified by the speech by the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) who, in a realistic way, summarised the attitudes to marriage of various generations. It is the generation who are just coming up to the married state or who have married recently for whom the House has a prime responsibility. They will be the beneficiaries or otherwise of any legislation that may result.
Surely we, in looking at the matter, must consider what we are breaking. What is the general concept behind marriage anyway? Unless we are clear about that, how can we be clear about the morality and the law on the breaking of marriage? The two points must go together.
In an intervention during the speech by the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, I made a point about the great gap in much of the discussion that has gone on, not only in the other place, but in the media. As I understand it, there are three partners in marriage and, therefore, three parties to its dissolution. I refer to the two people concerned and to what Conservative Members often call the state, which I prefer to refer to as society or the community as a whole. The House of Commons is the centre of law-making for that community.
I suggested in my intervention that the marriage ceremony was not just a commitment of two people to each other but, those two having made their commitment in front of their friends, relatives and representatives of the community—either the registrar or the registered person who is able to preside over marriages—a commitment made by those two people to the community. It is, therefore, a triangular arrangement and not just one between two people.
I now turn to the other important speech this evening, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), whose sensitivity and courage I commend. He made many important points, based on his professional experience.
I shall use my hon. Friend's speech as an example. As I pointed out when I intervened in it, he made one illogical assumption—that the registration of the birth of a child is at the time a moral and legal undertaking to bring that child up in the nurture of society, and to cherish that child as a new human being. I said to my hon. Friend that surely that was part of the purpose of marriage.
Therefore, at the point of marriage it is not only the two people concerned who commit themselves to the process—if that occurs, which is largely a matter of chance, good luck, or whatever: there is also a contract with the society of which that family, that married couple and any future child are part, to sustain the new life and, by virtue of that, to sustain the family as such. We seem to have forgotten about that.
8.30 pm
I put it to my hon. Friend that, at least in connection with that aspect of his speech, he would concede that some people do not see marriage as he outlined it, as an optional extra—I do not think that that description is unfair. It is true, however, that that is the view taken by some of the younger people that the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned earlier.
I suggest that that is not what marriage is, because it is the sort of contract, upheld in good will and love, which keeps our society together in a special way. I do not mean to say that that did not happen thousands of years ago, but in modern society it is even more important than ever.

Mr. Soley: The point that I made about registration was that, sadly, it is a fairly cold and mechanical action. When we register the birth of a child we are fulfilling a legal obligation to the child. The ceremony is not especially attractive; perhaps it should be. As for the marriage factor, marriage is a confused concept to some people. For some it is an immensely important ceremony; for others, it is


just an excuse for a party. My point was that simply by getting married one does not undertake to have children. That is something that may or may not happen.

Mr. Spearing: Indeed—I have conceded that. But the registration of a birth was never meant to be a ceremony as such. Like its opposite, the registration of a death, it is a legal undertaking.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) wishes to speak, and perhaps to enlarge on a similar theme, so I shall finish with one more short point. The ceremony of marriage is not simply an opportunity for a party; it is far more important than that. I put it to the Committee, especially to Conservative Members who have been enthusiastic both about the amendment under discussion and amendment No. 1, that it is the responsibility of the community, and therefore of the House and of any Government, to sustain the institution of marriage. Yet that has not happened.
Let us consider the places in which people can now get married. Marriage is now part of a marketplace, and is not upheld with the due degree of importance that it once had. People can get married in all sorts of places, and I wonder how many hon. Members thought of that aspect of those changes, although it may not have been possible to oppose them.
We should think of the need to maintain housing, health, education for children and sustained employment for the breadwinner—and also, perhaps wrongly, the need for more women to go to work to maintain the family income, and the stress that comes from that. All those factors are important in sustaining the marriage and the family. In society, in making laws, and in considering the structure of our taxes, Conservative Members, like the rest of us, have a duty to sustain marriage as it should be and as we wish it to be.
There is so much stress today. Much of the difficulty in marriage is surely caused by society's inability to sustain properly what each of us would like to see, what other people would like to choose, and what others, unhappily, regret that they have had to terminate.
We should support the amendments, because they emphasise the fact that, although the breaking of marriage is important, we should pay much more attention both in the House and in society to the way in which marriages are made, and to the challenge that growing young people face when they advance into that happy state.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Although marriage is a public commitment, most of us who get married do not expect to expose our marriages to more than private reflection. I can tell the Committee that when I got married I knew that it would end in divorce, desertion, dissolution or death—and on the whole I prefer the idea of death, so long as it is natural.
Marriage is something that people tend to catch; if it works, it is a matter of chance as much as of choice. I would not be surprised if I came home one night from the House of Commons to discover a note saying, "You've been a rotten person for the past 25 or 30 years and I'm off." I hope that that will not happen, but one always lives in some kind of expectation of discovering

that one has not been quite so good a marriage partner as one ought to have been—or at least, that things may look like that from the other person's point of view.

Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. Friend undervalues himself.

Mr. Bottomley: What I am really trying to say is—to put it another way—I have many friends who have lived in a state of non-marriage for decades, and I do not feel any the worse about them for that. I also have friends, and some members of my family, who have been divorced. That has never been a happy experience. It is clear that many who set out to get married find that it is a good choice, whether it is what they really intended in the first place or not. One cannot really extrapolate either from their experience or from one's own to decide what others should do.
In general in politics it is better to say, "I must, you should, they may," rather than the other way round. However, we in the House and the Committee have the responsibility of making the law—and marriage, whether the ceremony is civil or religious, is a legal contract. We must face the consequences of experience and learn from them.
That is why I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has done the Committee and the country a service in reminding us of a proposal that he put forward some years ago that was not then accepted either by Government or by the House. I do not know whether his proposed amendment will be accepted tonight, but it would not be a disaster for anyone if it were.
The Committee must remember that the real consequence of divorce is to allow people lawfully to remarry. A divorce is not necessary for separation, desertion or cohabitation with somebody else; it is necessary only for someone lawfully to remarry.
Table 1.10, on page 42 of the 1996 edition of "Social Trends", shows us that the state of being divorced and not remarried is a fairly unpopular one. There is no age group in which the proportion of people who are divorced is higher than 6 per cent., and in all age groups, 62 per cent. of people are married—although that does not necessarily mean that they are living together. In addition, 6 per cent. are cohabiting, 24 per cent. are single, 4 per cent. are widowed—obviously that is more likely in the older age groups—3 per cent., on average, are divorced, and 1 per cent. are separated.
The state of being divorced is therefore transitional. The decision that we must make is how long people have to wait before they can remarry. To maintain the bar on an application for divorce during the first 12 months of marriage is essential, and I shall probably vote not to change the situation, although my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst made a cogent case.
The alternative or additional way of setting about the issues is that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). Again, the Committee owes him many thanks for the thoughtfulness with which he has prepared his amendments and advanced his arguments. The same goes for the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). I am not sure that their arguments were fully convincing. I regret that there


are not many more hon. Members here to listen to the debate. When there is a free vote, we have an opportunity to consider arguments that we may not have thought of before the debate. Although some of the issues have been rehearsed over the past year, it is of benefit to listen to other hon. Members and their quotations from people who have written to them and to hear of their professional experiences as lawyers or Members of Parliament.
One problem involves helping people to know when to get married and how to build marriages. There should be many more discouragements to people getting married when they are pregnant. It is generally better to make that decision after a child is born or before conception. I suspect that that could be done by encouraging churches to have representations of a pregnant Mary with a sign saying, "Society didn't think much of me at the time." It would be helpful if we could make people more open about such situations.
Most ministers of religion are able and willing, either themselves or with someone from their Church or faith, to give advice on when marriage may not be sensible. Some people get married only because society expects it for some reason rather than because of a willingness to make a commitment to becoming a lifelong couple—a union that lasts for life. People should not feel a social obligation to get married.
If we go back to what appears to be old-time moral teaching—which is very up to date for many people—that warns people not to be sexually active unless they are married and that the only way to marry is with the intention of being married for life, we ask people to marry younger than is sensible, given the nature of modern society. This is not the time to unpack those issues, but they should be considered deeply by those who give advice to people.
We must remember that celibacy is not inherited. When the rate of divorce is half the rate of marriage, we could do much to reduce avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap, and to promote well-being through a mixture of wealth and welfare, by halving the divorce rate over the next five or 10 years. I suspect that were we to make no change in the law, the divorce rate would fall significantly. That is partly because it is linked to the marriage rate. It is a mathematical fact that if there were no more marriages—legal contracts to be together for life—after about 70 years there would be no more divorces. Divorce follows marriage; it cannot precede it or be independent of it.
People can learn from the experience of others. We have to ask what are the ways of making that more likely. Because I was in a Select Committee earlier, I was unable to be here for the first debate, so I hope that I will not repeat what others have said by referring to the work of the BT Forum in its "Communication Matters" papers on the Bill. Its briefings, which do not say what the law should be, give background information. The titles include "The Importance of Information", "Communicating with Children during Divorce", and "Strengthening Communication in Stepfamilies".
They point out that, when communication fails, divorce becomes even more stressful. It can affect people's health and work. Conflict can increase, which can have serious consequences for the couple and for children,

grandparents and other family members. Parents can lose touch with each other. Marriage may not be for life, but being a parent certainly is. If parents lose touch with each other and children lose touch with one parent—often the father—that is a loss. Second marriages can be threatened, with the risk of further relationship breakdown.
If communication is positive, conflict can be minimised, parents and children can cope with difficult transitions and children can have the love and security of two parents, even if they live apart. Family networks are not destroyed and new families have a better chance of survival. In considering the law, we should be aware that it is not only the only thing that matters. Much emphasis has been given to mediation, conciliation and the opportunity for people to think and learn from the experience of others.
We have been told about the number of people who regretted applying for a divorce. Those figures may not reflect what people think at all times; people will feel like that some of the time, but not necessarily all the time. We need to learn from the experience of others. In Canada, where there is a minimum period of one year between applying for a divorce and obtaining one, about one application in five is withdrawn. If people choose to withdraw an application because they think that they would be beater off without a divorce, that is clearly a gain. I doubt whether with two years 40 per cent. of people would so choose, although there may be some extra benefit—I do not know.
It is reported from New Zealand—I have not seen the original research study—that if the problems of a first marriage can be tidied up before a second marriage starts, the failure rate of second marriages is reduced significantly. That is also a gain. Promoting better communication within married couples is important, whether or not they go on being married. Being more open about communication, and helping people to learn from experience, is important.
The divorce experience needs to be shared with people who are considering divorce. They should not have to wait to discover it for themselves. Marriage experience should be shared before people get married so that they do not go in with the Pollyanna-ish view that marriage will solve all their problems and permit an easy progression through life.
Relationship experiences matter. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) told us of his work in the probation service. I think that he would agree that the problems of many people who are born to fail or, to put it a better way, who do not experience success in many parts of their lives, come down to relationships in the household or households in which they grew up. We cannot change that for everybody, but we can try to make more such information available.
Next month's copy of the Reader's Digest has information about what every adult should learn about basic lifesaving techniques and asks:
Could you save your child from drowning?
I am looking forward to reading articles about what every young adult should know about marriage-building habits. They are not guaranteed to work, but they would include the sort of things that matter—such as doing things together and talking to each other.
When marriage becomes difficult, and people find themselves in crisis, it is important that they should know where to go for help and have people who can explain the divorce process if that is what they seek.


The consequences of divorce should be outlined to them. They may regard some of those consequences as beneficial, but they will regard many as harmful to their happiness. Many couples cannot easily afford living together, and living apart is even more expensive. Re-formed families often add to the expense. Such information is important.
Another important point that must be emphasised—this applies whether or not the amendments are accepted—involves children's need for communication. Can children in divorce communicate with a trusted adult? We cannot lay that down by law, but it matters a great deal. Children need to be kept informed and to have their say. They need to stay in communication with the whole family. They may need access to counselling. They need to be able to communicate, whatever their age. Even adults are not unaffected by their parents' divorce. It can be a difficult time in which certainties and familiar relationships may change. Their parents may form new households, to which it may be difficult to adjust.
In general, people face problems by asking Parliament to change the law. That does not necessarily make much difference. We could make adultery a crime, as it has been in some states in the United States, but it would not stop it happening. The law can be used for dispute resolution. In effect, we are discussing dispute resolution today—how we can reduce the number of people who need to go right through a divorce, how to reduce the pain and ineffectiveness of divorce, and in what conditions and time scale divorce can be achieved.
We should set out with some social policy targets, certainly in the short term, to make the process of divorce less damaging and, in some ways, more effective. It is important to ensure that the ancillary issues of children, property, assets and pension rights are settled. However, the main aim must be to try to reduce the number of people in marriages which break up at any time other than death. That requires a change in the way in which people approach marriage and in society's expectations. Perhaps most of all, it requires people trying to provide effective help for those in marriage by example, to some extent by exhortation, but most of all by understanding the constellation of factors that people find so difficult.
However we dispose of the amendments, in 10 years' time I hope that the divorce rate will have been reduced by at least a third, if not halved, and that more people will find themselves able to commit themselves to matrimony not just in the hope but in the expectation that the marriage will last.

Ms Armstrong: I am speaking in this debate largely because of my involvement, both professional and voluntary, in working with children. In that sense, I disagree with one of the things that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said. I do not see children as an ancillary issue in a divorce. Children and dealing with their problems are the prime concerns of our legislation—both in how we draft it and in how we see it. On that basis, I do not agree with the amendment.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is not present, because we come from similar backgrounds. He described himself as a practitioner in the area, and by that he meant that he was a lawyer. I like to talk about myself as a practitioner

who wants to ensure that matters never get to the lawyers. I want us to make less work for lawyers, by trying to ensure that we give families the right support and framework so that they can begin to resolve problems without getting that far. That is way beyond being optimistic, but none the less it ought to inform the way in which we approach legislation.
I am also sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East is not here because I. too, was interested in the prospect of Auntie Wu. The Auntie Wus are the people who work with families and children and who know them. So they are the people they go to first and foremost. They are the very people who are strongly urging us not to extend the period. From their experience of working with families, they know that, although a year seems like no time to us and we keep saying, "Goodness me, aren't the months going by quickly?", 12 months in a child's life is a very long time.
We should be debating, not the time space, but what happens and what we are prepared to do to enable a family to face what is happening within it and the effect that it is having on the children.
Measures that ought to be in the Bill are not. I hope that we shall consider such measures in Committee, to ensure that the effect on children of the procedures and of the breakdown in the relationship will be faced and that there will be no option other than to face that because of the way in which the process works.
For many years, I have been involved with what is now NCH Action for Children—in the old days, it was the National Children's Home.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A much better name.

Ms Armstrong: Whatever the name, it is the work that the organisation does that I am concerned about. It is a Methodist charity, and I have been involved with it since I was young.
I also trained as a family case worker and was involved as a volunteer in setting up one of the early women's refuges, so I have some experience in working with families facing the worst and most difficult of problems. Without doubt, all the people involved went into marriage thinking that it would be wonderful and that it would solve all their problems. The majority went into marriage without any preparation and also had no preparation for becoming parents.
I grew up in a household that included my grandparents, with other members of the family close by. The family was always much more than merely my brother and me and our mother and father. Far fewer people have that sort of experience now than when I was growing up, because of the difference in social structure and the way in which families live. In such a structure, one learned about parenting because one was part of a larger family and a larger experience.
In recent years, through NCH Action for Children and the Methodist division of education, which has the children's section within it at the moment, we have been constructing and doing much work on parenting courses. They are for ordinary, everyday parents, not necessarily for parents who are in crisis. Indeed, the courses are really not suitable for those in crisis. They recognise that the problems that families confront these days are different and seem much more complex than in previous years.


The experience of working together over a period and thinking about one's problems with children and so forth has been instructive. Courses in schools have grown out of that experience. A school in Durham county is part of a pilot scheme for running parenting courses for adolescents.
I want the Government to think through how they can help people to confront what it means to enter a marriage relationship and to take on children in our society. The Bill cannot do all that, but if in passing it we miss the opportunity to face up to those things, we shall be making some serious mistakes. We must recognise that the world and our society have changed and that the demands on young couples these days are very different and more complex than they were even 25 years ago.
Divorce affects children strongly. The breakdown in the relationship of their parents also affects children. So, whether it is divorce or other forms of breakdown, the effect on children can be enormously damaging. NCH is one of the charities that is concerned with the problem. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has enormous experience in working with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and I have met and worked with him on the issue on a number of occasions.
The children's charities do not simply say, "It's all right, we'll look after your problems." They confront families with what they are doing when they allow relationships to break down. They try to work on that and help families face their problems. They try to find ways in which children can be supported, so that they feel that their integrity can remain no matter what their parents do. They try to allow children to face these terrible issues with some feeling of self-regard and strength.
However, if children's charities are to do that, they need the backing of a framework of legislation that says that when the law is brought in, the needs of the children will be paramount. We say that in the Children Act 1989, and we ought to say it in this legislation. The views of children—the voice of children—should be heard throughout the proceedings. The judge who is taking decisions should ask the sorts of questions that we believe should be asked so that that challenge is met. I hope that the Standing Committee will look at some of those issues.
The NCH began, and has continued, the mediation service in this country. It has been an important way of enabling families who are facing separation and divorce to do so with as little bitterness and recrimination as possible. The worst thing for children is that they are caught in the middle and used as one of the appendages, as one of the accessories, of a divorce—they are bargained over and put one against the other. We cannot frame legislation which allows that or which at least does not diminish it as much as possible.
It is our responsibility to diminish the manner in which children can be used in that way. We should frame the legislation so that we enable couples—whatever their anger with each other—to be helped to think about the future of the children.

Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Lady is talking about an important point. From her experience with mediation

services, could she describe how much effort goes into reconciliation—in other words, the process before the couple try to sort out the end of a marriage?

9 pm

Ms Armstrong: It is a separate issue. The children's charities are involved in trying to support families, which they do in family centres and so on. Family centres work towards reconciliation. Mediation is a different thing. Mediators say, "You may have decided to separate or to divorce, but when you do so, the needs of the children must come to the forefront. The more you are bitter and the more recrimination there is, the less opportunity there will be for the child to grow up feeling respect for both parents. When children are not able to feel respect for parents, it has a damaging effect on them and on their ability to grow up and to mature."
I did a quick survey of mediation services last year when the White Paper was published, and I shall give hon. Members a few examples of what was said in response to a question about how they would face the increased levels of mediation that were envisaged in the Lord Chancellor's initial proposals. Hampshire Family Mediation said:
We are unable to continue our level of provision unless we receive some additional funding.
Lancashire Family Mediation Service said:
We are not equipped at the present time to cope with an increase in work which would inevitably occur if the changes are put into effect.
Calderdale FMS and Bradford and Keighley FMS said:
We are dedicated, hard working people trying very hard to maintain professional standards on a wing and a prayer and very little support.
Cleveland FMS said:
Mediation within services is still in a fragile and vulnerable state due to unstable revenue funding.
Leeds Family Mediation Service said:
Help—the next three years are crucial to the survival of family mediation and the development of all issues. Mediation—without the support over this short term period it is difficult to see how our service can build on the expertise of 11 years and move into the public sector offering a professional well trained service.
Worcestershire Family Mediation said:
If we are to continue to offer an efficient service and to cope with the extra cases envisaged it is imperative that we get central government funding. Without this funding we would eventually be unable to continue to operate.
The London service is called Eye to Eye Mediation—it is an NCH project. It said:
Mediation historically has been provided as the result of the good will of mediators who have worked in the main unpaid for many years. The professional qualifications/standards expected of mediators are extremely high and it is hard to see how a full service can be provided to the public until such time as services are properly funded and mediators realistically remunerated.
Throughout the country, mediation services have built up enormous good will. Most of the mediators are voluntary; they give of their free time and receive only expenses. Mediation is a very important part of the procedure in the Bill, and it will need the type of support that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) spoke about.

Dame Jill Knight: Many of us are upset that in the Bill all the pressure seems to be for mediation—which was borne out by what the hon. Lady has just said—not


conciliation. Conciliation is not mediation. The point that I am sure is at the back of the hon. Lady's mind is that she is more in favour of doing a reconciliation job than of divvying up the ante, or the possessions and children of a marriage.

Ms Armstrong: I want to draw to a close. I was going to say in closing that I strongly believe that the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith made about our need to get to grips with family policy are central.
I know many families who are breaking apart because they cannot accept what is happening to them and around them. Income families in my constituency, the men have worked with pride in their industry for many years using their skills, and are now left at 45 or 50 without any prospect of work. That has an effect on the family. I also meet families who are confronted with homelessness.
A family came to my most recent surgery. The grandfather had just lost the earnings supplement. He had been injured in the mining industry, which meant that he was living with his daughter and her husband and their young children. That family had suddenly lost £30 a week income, and they spoke to me seriously about the effect that that was having on how they looked after their children. That is not an excuse for breaking up, but we need to take account of the pressures that we are bringing to bear on families before we moralise and lecture them on how to meet the challenge of those problems.
We must have a policy of enabling and helping people into marriage and parenthood, which we do not have at the moment. During the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988, I argued that education for marriage and parenthood should be included in the national curriculum, but that was pooh-poohed by the Government.
We should do many things in recognition of the enormous difficulties that confront families these days. We should acknowledge our responsibility, not only to moralise about how things ultimately turn out, but to give people the right type of support and back them up at every stage—before marriage, after children are born, when the relationship is good and when there are signs of strain.
We must ensure that we frame the legislation so that, if a marriage has irreconcilably broken down, the needs of the children are paramount. The needs of the children are that we have decent mediation and do not prolong it, and that we use whatever time there is effectively to challenge those involved, so that they understand what they are doing, take hold of that and work with it in the most effective way. I argue strongly that the means that we use during a period of breakdown—not the time limit—are crucial. The period that we are considering represents a huge part of a child's life. I believe that it would be irresponsible to extend that period without paying much more attention to what is occurring during that time.
I shall not support the amendment, as I am not convinced that the Committee has focused on how to avoid marriage breakdown or how to ensure that the children are cared for properly in the event of breakdown. That is my major concern: we cannot condemn further generations of children to the agony and the distress that the many children of broken marriages have faced in recent years. We owe it to them to get the legislation right.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I speak in opposition to the amendments and in support of the Lord Chancellor who is responsible for the legislation. Much of my support for the legislation is based upon my respect for the Lord Chancellor, who has come in for an appalling amount of unwarranted invective regarding the drafting of the legislation.
I have some sympathy with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who said that couples should not be able to divorce immediately after marriage. I decided to check the figures and see how many quickie divorces result from marriages of convenience. In fact, the number of divorces that occur in the first year of marriage is minute—I cannot remember the figure precisely, but it is only 1 or 2 per cent. I do not think that it is an important consideration.
My hon. Friend implied also that the pressures of having children may lead couples to divorce early in their marriage. I find it difficult to accept that argument, because I imagine that these days most people get married because they want to have children—after all, there is no stigma attached to "living in sin", as it used to be called. Most people get married in order to provide a sound family base for the children whom they are hoping to produce.

Mr. Sims: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's comments. My point is that, during the first year of marriage, when couples are living together for the first time, their lives may be complicated by the arrival of a child. They may face a difficult period, and they must not believe that their problems will be easily solved by a divorce at the end of 12 months.
I accept that there are relatively few divorces after 12 months. However, I am concerned about the impression that the House is giving—the message that we are sending out—by saying that people can divorce after 12 months. I do not dispute the general thrust of my hon. Friend's argument.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for those useful comments. I put it to the House that there is more to marriage than either religion or the civil contract: there is also a biological bond. Hon. Members may be aware that I am, by profession, a biologist. Throughout the animal kingdom there is a tendency for males and females to get together to produce offspring and to remain together in the early stages while rearing their young. We have not created an artificial situation: it is natural for people who marry and produce children to wish to stay together—and most of them do.
Despite claims to the contrary, three quarters of all marriages last. In the past, couples remained together perhaps because they could not afford to divorce. We have a higher rate of divorce today, not simply because divorces are easier to obtain—although I do not deny that argument—but because previous generations of couples remained together in a very unhappy state. There are no statistics for the number of people who end up happily in second marriages. Perhaps both partners are better off for having got out of their first marriage and into a happy new union. We are fortunate that, these days, women in particular do not have to spend their whole lives unfulfilled and in misery. Divorce is not entirely negative. There is something to be said for the opportunity not to tolerate an unhappy relationship for a lifetime.
9.15 pm
I have some sympathy with the argument that a civil marriage contract should be for a minimum period, so that one knows that one is entering into marriage for two years, or whatever. However, the main concern is the time allowed to end a marriage once a couple have decided that things are not working out. Couples often enter a period of separation, often for many years—they do not automatically run off to the divorce court. The important point is that the state should not artificially and unnecessarily prolong their agony.
The divorce process will expand to fill the time available. If 18 months or two years is allowed, the process will take 18 months or two years—but if one year is allowed, a couple will resolve to sort matters out within that time, with all the advantages that that offers in respect of children of the marriage.
Attitudes to marriage vary considerably, depending on whether couples have a religious or secular attitude. People who adhere to a particular Church will stick to its rules and have a stronger impetus to make their marriage a success, because the Church gives a high priority to marriage—although these days, it seems that a lot of clerics have difficulty keeping their marriages together. If the Church is to be so forceful, it would do better leading more by example than it sometimes does.
The state has a role in dealing with the outcome of marriages that break down. There is something to be said for making civil marriage arrangements as clear as any other contract. The Government frequently change the rules, as they did with the allocation of matrimonial assets. There was a time when women could take hardly anything from a marriage, but today they can take more or less half the value of the matrimonial home. That is an example of the state intervening in the ending of a marriage.
There is a strong case for including in the marriage contract an explanation of the obligations to which couples are signing up, such as the distribution of property and joint responsibility for children if the marriage ends. The Government have already intervened in the form of the Children Act 1989 and the Child Support Agency, saying that a couple must accept equal responsibility for their children. The Government also intervened by introducing legal aid, to help meet part of the cost of divorce proceedings.
The state has not got it quite right in making it clear what it is that couples are signing up to in marriage. Although that aspect is not particularly relevant to clause 7, such an explanation might help to reduce slightly the divorce rate. I have no difficulty with the argument that couples can sort out their problems in one year.
Although I sympathise with many of the points that have been made, I believe that, given the time that the Lord Chancellor spent in reflection before presenting the Bill—he has enormous experience and I am a great one for leaning on the experience of people who are much better qualified in a subject than I am—the Committee would be unwise to reject his proposals and his advice, even though many of us would like to see marriages that were made in heaven and that never ended up in hell, as many do.

Lady Olga Maitland: I rise to add my support for amendments Nos. 7 and 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). I pay tribute to his work. He has put an enormous investment of effort into studying the institution of marriage, and he has played a major part in focusing our minds and those of the country as a whole on what is at stake.
I believe that amendments Nos. 7 and 8 reflect deep public concern, which has revealed itself in the enormous mail bag of letters and in the telephone calls that I have received. Only today, I have received a fair wodge of them. I shall not delay the House too long by itemising them all, but I shall give two examples of the depth of feeling in people outside in the country. The people think that we are trying to destroy marriage.
I received a letter from a constituent that states:
I am concerned about the Bill going through Parliament regarding divorce. We need to encourage couples and families to stay together. If divorce is going ahead, couples should have an adequate waiting period, giving a time for reconciliation.
That letter is obviously from someone who is not very literate and who has found it difficult to write, but who wrote it none the less.
Another letter from a constituent states:
I am worried that the reduced waiting period will encourage more couples to seek divorce when things begin to go wrong rather than to persevere and work at it.
We must realise that we have reached a crunch point. It is almost as if long-lived marriages have gone out of fashion. I am proud to say that I have been married for 27 years. Some people would say that I would take that view, but all marriages have to be worked at. Mine had to be worked at. I am the product of very happy parents who will have soon been married for 60 years. Successful marriages are a role model for successful marriages in their children and grandchildren.
It is also significant that children themselves draw together in friendships with other children who come from stable families, by and large. I have seen that in my own children's experience of growing up. Therefore, the lucky ones have had stability, but stability is not provided by chance. That point seems extraordinary, but stability is not just a stroke of good luck. It was provided because parents in each generation had recognised that they had come together in the sight of the community and made a public vow to each other, for the creation and rearing of children.
The children, above all, are the lifelong commitment. One of the implications of the enormous debate that has been raging is almost that the children are expendable. I find it so frustrating to hear inside and outside the Chamber about couples who try to excuse themselves by claiming that the children understand, that they are being very adult and that they are coping. The truth is that they do not cope. They cry. They sob silently. In many different ways, they express themselves heartrendingly.
There have been many studies of the effect of divorce on children. Exeter university produced one that showed conclusively that children do much better if their parents, even if they are in conflict, remain together.

Ms Corston: I am following carefully what the hon. Lady says about stable marriages being good role models and how important it is for couples to stay together where


possible. What advice would the hon. Lady give to a woman who was a repeated victim of gross domestic violence?

Lady Olga Maitland: One of the most important points that I made in my introductory remarks was that I supported the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. If the hon. Lady studies the amendments, she will find that it is clear that there is provision for women who have been the victims of domestic violence. A far greater number of marriages come to an end, however, when couples are downright selfish. They do not like this, and they do not like the other.
I had a conversation yesterday with a man in his 30s who had married a lady because he thought he should. As soon as he married, he formed another relationship because he thought that better and more to his liking. That relationship involved a woman with children.
That example told me that we are living in such a selfish society that couples can have a row, fancy something better and say, "Right, I have had enough." As the law is proposed, a couple could have a blazing row on Christmas day and the following year be out of the relationship, with the children thrown to the elements.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: My hon. Friend was not in the Chamber when I intervened earlier. It has been made clear for the purpose of debate that, if there is a row between a newly married couple, the earliest that a divorce can be granted is after a period of two years.

Lady Olga Maitland: We are talking about established families with children. That is crucial. Such marriages have obviously lasted longer than a couple of years. Children become nervous and terrified. As they are surrounded by a world of divorce, they think that divorce can happen to them, as it were, even when they are growing up in a stable family. They have nightmares. They believe that, if their parents have a tiff, that will be the end. They have seen it happen to others.

Dame Jill Knight: The debate was sparked off by real emotion. I was a child of a divorced couple. All this business about how good it is for children to get it over quickly is dead wrong. It has upset me to hear the contributions of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I would have given anything in the wide world to have kept my parents together.
The longer the period in which to consider whether or not to separate would have led me to think that there was more and more chance, and that just maybe divorce would not happen in the end. It is wrong to say that it is helpful to the child to have a quick divorce.

Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. Friend has spoken so rightly, so much from the heart and so correctly. We must bear in mind that children do not sanction divorce. They are not the ones who call for hasty divorce. I have not seen them marching in Hyde park. I have not been aware of them pressurising the various children's charities to make divorce easier.
I have heard and read so much about how children pray for their parents to be reconciled. Even if their parents are not entirely happy together, children would rather live in

a family that is one stable unit. Once children are cast out into the world and into other relationships, they are never No.1 to the original parents. They do not do so well at school. They suffer later in terms of their future relationships. Some even turn to crime. Some can turn to drugs. Some can experience such restlessness that they never settle down.
We must remember that the crunch and crux of the matter is: what will happen to the children? Therefore, the essence is: are we talking about mediation or reconciliation? We must put more effort and more thought into reconciliation, and ensure that that period in the separation is given due regard, attention and investment.
9.30 pm
It is astonishing that a pitiful amount of money is being set aside for reconciliation, when surely that is what will be better not only for the children, but for the country. Funding of £3 million is too little, and almost too late. We should consider the cost to the country, which has been put at £5 billion: the consequence of supporting families when they split up.
Time is moving on, and I know that we want to wind up this important debate, but may I say that we should be listening to the people outside and having regard to the fact that 100 peers on both sides of the House of Lords voted in favour of extending the year to 18 months, where both partners do not consent or where children are involved. If I had my choice, it would be two years.
We should listen to the mood of the country. We have an enormous moral responsibility. We owe it to future generations to enable them to grow up in a stable family where their rights—rather than the selfishness of the world today, which I bitterly deplore—are considered.
I hope that the amendments will go through overwhelmingly, and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will carefully bear in mind not only my arguments, but the words of the Churches. Cardinal Hume on reflection conceded that we must ensure that we support families. We have had support from the Anglican Church and the Jewish faith. We can go no further than to say, "Hark to those children." They deserve a better deal than we are giving them.

Mr. Boateng: Children have played an important part, as they should, in the debate. Both hon. Members for the amendment and those against it have referred to children and children's interests. Making an important point, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) asked us to make children's interests paramount in our deliberations, which we must do, because, if the current divorce rate continues, one in four children in England and Wales will see their parents divorce before they are 16. That is the scale of the problem.
I hear what the Chancellor of the Duchy says about the expectations of the Bill, but we are entitled to say that we look to the passage of a Family Law Bill that will make a positive contribution to the reduction in the number of divorces. That is a legitimate object of social policy, which we are entitled to attach to our deliberations on the Bill. The question therefore is how we arrive at that position.
I—like, I am sure, many other hon. Members—have agonised over the question of reflection and consideration of what the proper length of time should be. I have asked


myself for what purpose we are intending that reflection and consideration should take place. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) pressed home the point—and, in my respectful submission, with good cause—that there is a distinction between mediation and reconciliation. That distinction has been lost.
I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State indicating that that distinction is not lost on him, but it was lost on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. As Opposition Members noted—along, no doubt, with many others, including the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)—the Chancellor said that the Bill provided for mechanisms to deal with both reconciliation and mediation, but that is not the case: the Bill makes no provision for reconciliation.
There is a signpost to reconciliation. The Bill mentions reconciliation once—and that is the result of an amendment in the other place. I look forward to the Under-Secretary's clarification of the Government's priorities, but if that is the priority that Ministers attach to reconciliation, it is not good enough. We want the Bill to explain what will happen in the period of 12, 18 or 24 months.
I support a 12-month period, and again my reason relates to children. Children are at the heart of our consideration of the Bill. I believe that extending the period is likely to damage children—that they will bear the brunt.
Whatever period we choose, however, the Bill in its present form is likely to focus chiefly on mediation, but on mediation whose primary objective will be the reaching of an agreement about finances and children. Experience shows that, if all the emotional effort is directed at that, no effort will be expended on reconciliation. Th filing of a statement that the marriage has broken down irretrievably is a psychological breaking point, and it is difficult to recover from that and get into the mind set that is conducive to reconciliation.
A number of studies have been carried out. A particularly helpful one was conducted by Professor Davis of Bristol university. He says:
We should not delude ourselves about the impact upon the relationship of that first signed statement. It is not the equivalent of a despairing chat with a friend or parent"—
there is no Auntie Wu here—
it is a formal declaration; it is likely to be self-fulfilling.
That is the problem. Once the declaration has been made, there is a real danger that it will prove self-fulfilling. It is a case of: "I believe that the marriage has broken down irretrievably; therefore it has." All of us who have practised law know that, under the old arrangements, solicitors had to sign a statement to the effect that they had considered reconciliation with the client. We have all signed such statements, and we all recall the nature of that consideration. I see a number of hon. Members nodding.
The arrangement was farcical. Unless a designated period is allowed for reconciliation, whether it is 12, 18 or 24 months, there will be no reconciliation unless there is a clear and unequivocal commitment to the provision of resources. Unless there is a requirement for a meeting with a marriage guidance councillor—nothing else will

do; I am talking not about an information officer, but about someone with professional skills and aptitude in exploring the possibility of reconciliation—and unless that meeting is properly funded, it will not happen. That is why, in the absence of any proposal in the amendments to focus time and resources on reconciliation, I am unable to support an extension to 18 or 24 months.
If the period is so extended, the parties will concentrate initially on money and the kids, but will be held together in a loveless, non-existent relationship. They will not be assisted in reconciling, and the marriage will simply continue as an empty shell. An empty shell of a marriage, continued for the sake of it, devalues the ideal of marriage at a time when we should be supporting and uplifting the notion of marriage.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is advancing an extremely good case, and I agree with much of what he says. However, does he agree that reconciliation, which should feature far more positively in the Bill—I must point out to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that it is glaringly absent from it—would be much more likely, and that there would be more time for it, if the time limit was increased to 18 months or two years? Having said that, and perhaps put the Opposition spokesman on the spot, I agree that the resources must be available to ensure meaningful reconciliation.

Mr. Boateng: My fear is that such evidence as there is on the nature of the counselling process and the dynamics of the break-up of marriage suggests that
Time alone is unlikely to save marriages; better information and more coordinated interventions might
They are the words of Janet Walker, director of the Relate centre for family studies at the university of Newcastle upon Tyne. However, nothing in the Bill suggests that there is any intention whatsoever on the part of the Government to have co-ordinated intervention whose purpose is to save marriages.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman think—this is something at which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) half hinted—that, once the dust had settled and a couple had got the problems relating to the children and the financial arrangements out of the way, they could perhaps relax, and, with the extra year, might just manage to come together, having seen the difficulties that they set themselves in trying to make one budget do two families?

Mr. Boateng: I very much wish that the hon. Lady was right. It is my experience that so much dust will have been kicked up by then that the couple will be blinded by it, and, what is worse, the children will be affected by it. I fear that so much bitterness will have been engendered by then that any hope of reconciliation will be highly unlikely. Intervention—

Lady Olga Maitland: rose—

Mr. Boateng: I cannot give way any more.
Intervention has to be at an earlier stage. That is why we tabled our amendments, although I greatly welcome those tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and


Horncastle. Our amendments seek to provide for a dedicated space for reconciliation at the outset before the statement is made. It should be a requirement, not a wish, that such intervention take place at that stage.
We must have a response from the Minister. We look to him to assure us that the Government accept in principle the notion of early intervention, that they will make available the resources for that intervention and, if the right messages are to be sent, they accept the need to strengthen the support that has to be seen in the Bill for the institution of marriage.

Mr. Donald Anderson: If not?

Mr. Boateng: If not, the following. The Opposition supported the Bill on Second Reading on the basis that we support its main thrust. If the Bill is not amended along the lines possible so that we can arrive at a consensus across the House that the Bill aims to save marriages that can be saved and supports the institution of marriage, the Government cannot rely on our support on Third Reading. Let that be made absolutely clear. We are not in the business of presiding over something on our statute book that does nothing to save, support and preserve the institution of marriage.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I should begin by thanking all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. Sadly, many parts of it have been thinly attended, but that in no sense gives the Committee a conception of the quality and intelligence of virtually all the speeches made—both by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by Opposition Members.
We are faced today with a very heavy burden. The decisions we take this evening will have implications for many thousands of people and their children in years to come. We must therefore—I am sure that I, too, shall receive applause from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) for saying this—get it right.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Evans: In developing the policy underlining the Bill, the Lord Chancellor gave scrupulous attention to the responses that he received during the consultation. I should make it very clear to my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members that there is a lack of empirical research on what the most suitable minimum period for reflection and consideration may be. We are faced with forming a judgment—a personal judgment. That is why it is quite right that there should be a free vote in exercising that judgment.
It is worth while reminding the House of the function of the minimum period for reflection and consideration. It has been said that, by introducing this period, we are in some way reducing from two or five years to one year the time in which parties can divorce. Those arguments have even been presented in Committee.
I am bound to say that I do not think that there are accurate comparisons between the minimum 12-month period for reflection and consideration and the current time requirements for separation in divorce cases where,

for instance, no fault is alleged. The system proposed in the Bill is wholly different, and the period for reflection and consideration is in fact an entirely new legal concept.
Under the current system, the two and five-year periods of separation require the act of living apart. It is determined by the parties themselves, and the divorce is applied for on the basis of the parties' evidence of how long they have lived apart. My right hon. and hon. Friends have rightly expressed the damage that is done to children—not by the mechanisms of law that are involved in divorce, but by the departure of one of the parents.
So much in this debate has been quoted about the Exeter study. I was very glad to have a rather private word with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) about it. The study says that there is clear damage to children who are in a relationship where there is argument between the parents, but that there is more damage to children when one or other party leaves. The point I make to some of my hon. Friends is that that is not the same as talking about the mechanisms of the divorce legislation.
At the moment, during the separation period, parties simply have to wait out their legal time. It is a passive time, for which there are no clear objectives and there is no encouragement to consider the consequences of divorce or the possibility of reconciliation. That is the structure of the current law, and that is why, as I said on Second Reading, I believe so passionately that it is important to address the matter.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend accept that, even as the law stands today, 30,000 couples who place their petition then withdraw it on reflection? If there is only one year in which to consider, reflect and mediate, there simply will not be time for proper reflection. We shall not, therefore, get the same number of people having second thoughts.

Mr. Evans: I point out to my hon. Friend—we shall discuss the dynamics of this in due course—that we are talking about a minimum period. The current median time for granting a divorce absolute, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), is just under seven months. Yet we know that, even within that period, between 25,000 and 30,000 petitions do not proceed to divorce. Is that not a further reason why the introduction of a minimum period of 12 months is a constructive step?
By contrast with the current position, under the Bill, once the divorce process is started, there will be a court-monitored period, with clear objectives. That period will not begin until a notice is served to the court, and that cannot take place until somebody has attended the information session.
Deciding future arrangements is vital. It focuses on the obligations of marriage and the special responsibilities that those who enter into it have to each other and to their children. The introduction of a fixed minimum period for reflection and consideration is therefore vital. There may have been occasions when my hon. Friends and I have not seen altogether eye to eye on every aspect of the Bill, but I hope that we are all agreed on the introduction of a fixed minimum period for reflection and consideration.
The length of the period is a question on which hon. Members have more difficulty agreeing. The views held on the length of the period are many, and, I am bound to


say, equally valid. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) reminded the Committee of the Catholic bishops' conference statement on 15 November last year. Indeed, I quoted it myself on Second Reading. I pointed out then that the bishops were of the view that differing judgments could be made about the predictable effects of such legislation, but that those judgments were made sincerely, honestly and legitimately. I am pleased to say that that has been the character of our debate this evening.
However, we are here to make law, so, however much we respect each other's views, we must settle on one of the propositions before us. The amendments fall into two main categories. There is the extension of the minimum period in the Bill, which currently stands at 12 months, where there are children aged under 16 and where one of the parties does not consent to divorce. For each of the amendments designed to lengthen the minimum period, we have a choice between extending it by six months or by 12 months. That would make the minimum period either 18 months or two years.
I shall discuss first whether the minimum period we decide on should be fixed, without the possibility of an extension if particular circumstances exist. I shall then go on to discuss differing lengths of the minimum period, depending on whether there is consent or whether there are children. The principal aim of a fixed minimum period is to establish, as far as we can, that the breakdown in the marriage is irretrievable. A fixed minimum period is also a clear, unambiguous and absolute statement about the importance of marriage and its obligations. It may be argued that introducing exceptions of any kind to the rule would weaken the way in which the period is regarded.
We should ensure that irretrievable breakdown can be clearly demonstrated by a simple test that avoids scope for pressure by one party against the other to give in and to decide arrangements that will not necessarily be in the best interests of the children—pressure that may abuse the system.
I suggest that we need to emphasise the importance of the full minimum period as the core test of whether a ground for dissolution exists. There is a strong argument against making any exceptions to the requirement that parties can apply for divorce only after some time spent reflecting and considering—and, indeed, only when they have been married for at least two years.
In that context, it might be said that there is some merit in having a definite period that is clear, unequivocal and without any exceptions. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said earlier that one of his colleagues who shared his views on such matters thought that there should be no exceptions.
Now I turn to the subject of providing for differing periods when the divorce is not consented to by both parties, or when there are children under the age of 16 in the family. Many, including several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, have asked why one party should be able to obtain a divorce in the same time, regardless of whether his or her spouse agrees to the divorce.
There is a strong view that, if one party to a marriage is hostile to divorce and believes that the marriage can be saved, every opportunity should be given to save the marriage. It is thought that time might help. Many might also think that it is different if neither party believes at

the outset that there is any hope left for the marriage, and that the length of the period for reflection and consideration should represent that view. Most seem to think the period should be shorter in such cases.
However, it could certainly be argued that, where neither party believes that a marriage can be saved, the people concerned will actually need more time to work on saving their marriage than they would if only one party held that view. Contrary to the thrust of the amendments, that could be said to point to the need for a longer rather than a shorter period where there is consent. But there does not appear to be much support for that view in the Committee—although, of course, there are those who say that, where there are children under 16, the period should be longer even where both parties agree to divorce.
Some argue that the period should be automatically extended where one party objects to divorce. However, in those circumstances, the withholding or granting of consent could become a powerful bargaining chip in negotiating about children and financial arrangements for the future. In such circumstances, it is important that children are not put at greater risk as arrangements for them become part of the bargain.
It may also be felt that the potential for hostility between the parties would be greatly increased if a longer period were required where one party withheld consent, because the parties would enter a power struggle to get the best deal, and would keep at it, each trying to wear the other down. Again, that could significantly detract from the value of the period in encouraging reconciliation between the parties and getting them to focus on the future of their children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has tabled an amendment designed to extend the absolute bar on divorce from one year to two years. If it were accepted, no divorce could be applied for on the basis of a statement made before the second anniversary of a marriage. The overall effect of my hon. Friend's amendment, as he told us, would be to provide that no divorces would be allowed during the first three years of marriage—that is, there would be two years' absolute bar, and then the minimum period for reflection and consideration.
I fully understand the sentiment behind the amendment. I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend several times, and I have much sympathy with the arguments that he has put to the Committee. It is to send out to the world at large the message that marriage is an important institution, and that it should not be devalued by a precipitate divorce.
However, others have said that disallowing divorce for a period of that length may reintroduce the demand, which my hon. Friend will recall, under the old law that, in cases of exceptional hardship or depravity, access to a quicker divorce should be granted. My hon. Friend's amendments would allow no exceptions whatsoever.
Therefore, I should make it clear to the Committee that, if they are carried, it is likely that the argument on abridgement will be raised at a later stage. If couples cannot get divorced in such situations, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that there is some evidence that suggests, surprisingly, that they may forum shop in other jurisdictions to obtain their divorce. I was surprised to learn that but I am told that that was what happened under the previous legislation during the 1980.
There is clear evidence that the number of divorces that are granted in the early years of marriage—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Question agreed to.

Family Law Bill [Lords]

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Evans: There is clear evidence that the number of divorces granted during the early years of marriage has increased. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst therefore draws the Committee's attention to a serious issue.
Some recent press reports have falsely claimed that the Bill would enable parties to divorce on the first anniversary of their marriage. As I have made clear previously, that is untrue. The current law permits a petition to be served the day after the first anniversary of the marriage. The Bill would effectively double that minimum period before an application for a divorce could be made, although my hon. Friend's amendments would lengthen the period for a further year.
I turn now to the core issue of whether the period for reflection and consideration should be lengthened from the minimum of 12 months proposed in the Bill. Clearly, as I said earlier, that is a matter for the individual judgment of hon. Members. There is a need to restate the fact that the period that we are considering is the period for reflection and consideration following service of the statement of marital breakdown. Accordingly, from the time that the Bill comes into effect, we will be preventing couples from making an application for a divorce order until that minimum period has elapsed.
Although I have no doubt that some hon. Members will find it attractive to opt for a longer period as a quid pro quo for the removal of the need to make allegations of fault, it must be borne in mind that longer periods can create hardship. The longer the period that amendment may bring, the more the argument will gain currency that shortening the period should be granted in particular cases.
I want to make it clear to the Committee that I am strongly opposed to reducing the period below the bare minimum currently in the Bill. We must remember that we are trying to create balanced law tough enough to ensure that couples take marriage seriously and try hard, but not so tough that they reject it altogether. That was a matter of concern to several hon. Members who spoke. Although we have one of the highest marriage rates in Europe, we were reminded that it has been falling in recent years.
Sadly, marriage rates have fallen most sharply among younger people. There are those who believe that making the period for reflection and consideration too long, even if that is being done for the some of the honourable reasons that we have been debating this evening, might affect marriage rates among the young. If marriage is seen as something that is so difficult to get out of if things do go wrong, young people may decide that they prefer to demonstrate their commitment to each other by way of cohabitation rather than marriage. We should be cautious that, with the best of intentions, we do not take any step in the individual judgments we make that would in any way undermine marriage or adversely affect marriage rates.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) reminded the Committee at the beginning of these debates that we are all making individual judgments, and that no statements made from the Dispatch Box are anything other than the personal views of those who express them. I reiterate those words in relation to the words that I intend to make. In the circumstances, it is necessary for the Committee to know my personal view.
It is my view that the minimum period, even if that length of time is disputed, should be the same in all cases, whether there are children in a marriage or not. I find it difficult to see how extending the period for couples with children can be said to benefit children.
Children, as we would all acknowledge, suffer greatly from their parents' marriage breakdown. As I said to some of my hon. Friends earlier, they suffer particularly from a decision of one parent to leave the marital home. It is clear from all the evidence that that is one of the factors that causes much damage. One reason why we need to focus particularly on that is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) reminded us, sometimes children unjustly and wrongly attribute to themselves the responsibility for their parent's marital breakdown.
In considering those issues, it is important that we do not run the risk of parents, in moments of frustration, blaming their children for the fact that they may have to wait longer to be free of a marriage that they believe to be long finished. That is a danger, bearing in mind all the emotional and practical pressures that inevitably arise in the divorce process. I hope that there will be hon. Members who feel that placing that additional pressure on children is unfair.
The idea that drawing out the period for a lengthier time may be harmful to children is not just my personal view. On Third Reading in another place, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor quoted from letters that he had received from a number of children's charities. During this debate, we heard a contribution from the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), who referred to her experience with the National Children's Home—I call it that in order not to engage in any sort of backwards attack from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). [Interruption.]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members attending the Chamber should listen to the hon. Member who has the Floor; otherwise, they should have their conversations elsewhere.

Mr. Evans: The National Children's Home and a number of other children's charities have considerable


experience in the area. The Lord Chancellor quoted from letters that he had received from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, The Children's Society, Barnardo' s and the National Children's Home, all of which dealt with that concept of lengthening the period where children are involved.
I know that those organisations have written to hon. Members. I do not intend to repeat their comments, but hon Members will be aware that those are the views of some of the most highly respected children's organisations, who have a wealth of experience in this field and whose views I would not dismiss lightly.
At the beginning of this speech, I said that those who have contributed to this debate have done so with sincere and heartfelt opinions. In my opinion, the speeches that we have heard this evening have been sincere, passionate, intelligent and legitimate.
Many hon. Members quoted the injunction that was given to us earlier by the Catholic bishops. I applaud all hon. Members who contributed to the debate, all of whom listened with care to the arguments that were put before the Committee. As I said earlier, we must remember with caution that what we decide tonight will have far-reaching implications. We must examine our views very carefully—whatever decisions we make—and give careful and measured thought to those who will be affected by the way that we vote.
Couples, despite their best efforts, are sometimes involved in the trauma of marital breakdown. The innocent parties to that trauma—who have figured in many speeches—are the children whose whole lives will be affected by what we decide tonight. Therefore, we are not deciding just an intellectual question of how long it should take for couples to prove that their marriage has irretrievably broken down, or a quick gut reaction, or a gesture towards restricting divorce. We are making decisions that will have an effect on the lives of thousands of people and their children. It is a responsibility that we cannot take too seriously.

Mr. Sims: The debate this evening has inevitably centred on the length of time that will be devoted for the period for reflection and consideration. I remind the Committee that the debate started with the amendment that I moved, which would have the effect of making couples who are married unable to initiate divorce proceedings for two years, rather than the one year that is at present the law.
I believe that it is important for us to uphold the status of marriage. The Bill has been criticised for undermining the credibility of marriage—I think, perhaps, inaccurately. Nevertheless, we must send a message from this Committee that marriage is the foundation of our society, and that stable marriages are very important.
People should not get married "unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly"—to quote the Church service—and they should know that, when they get married, they cannot simply dissolve the contract within one year. I think that two years is a perfectly reasonable minimum period. That will be the effect of my amendment on which the first vote will take place. I hope that the Committee will support it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 235.

Division No. 106]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Horam, John


Alton, David
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Amess, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hunter, Andrew


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Jenkin, Bernard


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Jessel, Toby


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Bates, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Beggs, Roy
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Beith, Rt Hon A J
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bellingham, Henry
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bendall, Vivian
Knapman, Roger


Benton, Joe
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Booth, Hartley
Leigh, Edward


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Brazier, Julian
Lidington, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Lord, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
McAvoy, Thomas


Burns, Simon
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Burt, Alistair
McLoughlin, Patrick


Butcher, John
Maitland, Lady Olga


Cann, Jamie
Marlow, Tony


Cash, William
Mates, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Merchant, Piers


Congdon, David
Mills, Iain


Conway, Derek
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Dafis, Cynog
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Murphy, Paul


Day, Stephen
Neubert, Sir Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Nicholls, Patrick


Devlin, Tim
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Dixon, Don
Paice, James


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Duncan Smith, Iain
Parry, Robert


Eastham, Ken
Patten, Rt Hon John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Evennett, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Faber, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Riddick, Graham


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Robathan, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


French, Douglas
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Fry, Sir Peter
Sackville, Tom


Gale, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gallie, Phil
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gardiner, Sir George
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gill, Christopher
Sims, Roger


Gillan, Cheryl
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Gorst, Sir John
Smyth, The Reverend Martin (Belfast S)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)



Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Spink, Dr Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Spring, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Sproat, Iain


Hannam, Sir John
Steinberg, Gerry


Hargreaves, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Harris, David
Streeter, Gary


Hawksley, Warren
Sumberg, David


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Sweeney, Walter






Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilshire, David


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Tredinnick, David
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Mr. Michael Alison and


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Donald Anderson.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fatchett, Derek


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fishburn, Dudley


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Fisher, Mark


Allen, Graham
Flynn, Paul


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Forman, Nigel


Armstrong, Hilary
Forth, Eric


Ashby, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barnes, Harry
Foulkes, George


Barron, Kevin
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bayley, Hugh
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Galbraith, Sam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gapes, Mike


Bermingham, Gerald
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Berry, Roger
Garnier, Edward


Betts, Clive
Gerrard, Neil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Godman, Dr Norman A


Boateng, Paul
Godsiff, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bradley, Keith
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brandreth, Gyles
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bright, Sir Graham
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burden, Richard
Hall, Mike


Butler, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hanson, David


Byers, Stephen
Harman, Ms Harriet


Caborn, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Callaghan, Jim
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heald, Oliver


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heppell, John


Carrington, Matthew
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hodge, Margaret


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clapham, Michael
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Coffey, Ann
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Illsley, Eric


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Ingram, Adam


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jack, Michael


Darling, Alistair
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Denham, John
Janner, Greville


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jenkins, Brian (S.E. Staffs)


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Etherington, Bill
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Khabra, Piara S


Fabricant, Michael
Kirkwood, Archy





Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Pawsey, James


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Pickthall, Colin


Knox, Sir David
Pike, Peter L


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Pope, Greg


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Primarolo, Dawn


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Quin, Ms Joyce


Livingstone, Ken
Radice, Giles


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Rendel, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Llwyd, Elfyn
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Loyden, Eddie
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Luff, Peter
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Lynne, Ms Liz
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McCartney, Ian
Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


McFall, John
Shersby, Sir Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Short, Clare


MacKay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madden, Max
Soames, Nicholas


Madel, Sir David
Soley, Clive


Mahon, Alice
Spellar, John


Major, Rt Hon John
 Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Marland Paul
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Martlew, Eric
Stevenson, George


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tipping, Paddy


Meacher, Michael
Touhig, Don


Meale, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Tyler, Paul


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Milburn, Alan
Walden, George


Miller, Andrew
Wallace, James


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Ward, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morgan, Rhodri
Wareing, Robert N


Morley, Elliot
Watson, Mike


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Whitney, Ray


Mudie, George
Whittingdale, John


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Wigley, Dafydd


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Worthington, Tony


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Oppenheim, Phillip



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Page, Richard
Mr. Peter Bottomley and


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sir Jim Lester.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being later than three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the clause, THE CHAIRMAN put the Questions then required to be put.

Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 5, line 14, at end add—
'(9A) Where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, subsection (9D) applies if—

(a) the other party applies to the court, within the prescribed period, for time for further reflection; and
(b) the requirements of section 9 (expect any imposed under section 9(3) are satisfied.

(9B) Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (9D) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen when the statement is received by the court.

(9C) Subsection (9D) does not apply if—

(a) at the time when the application for a divorce order is made, there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force in favour of the applicant, or of a child of the family, with a power of arrest attached under section 44; or
(b) the court is satisfied that delaying the making of a divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family.

(9D) If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of one year, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order.'.—[Mr. Leigh.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 243.

Division No. 107]
[10.24 pm


AYES


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Alton, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Amess, David
Hannam, Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Harris, David


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Hawksley, Warren


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hoey, Kate


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Horam, John


Bates, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Beggs, Roy
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bellingham, Henry
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Bendall, Vivian
Hunter, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Jenkin, Bernard


Booth, Hartley
Jessel, Toby


Bowis, John
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Budgen, Nicholas
Kirkhope, Timothy


Burns, Simon
Knapman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Butcher, John
Leigh, Edward


Cash, William
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Clappison, James
Lidington, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Congdon, David
Lord, Michael


Conway, Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Macdonald, Calum


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
McFall, John


Dafis, Cynog
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Day, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Mates, Michael


Dixon, Don
Merchant, Piers


Duncan Smith, Iain
Mills, Iain


Eastham, Ken
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Evennett, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Faber, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Parry, Robert


Fry, Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gale, Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gallie, Phil
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gardiner, Sir George
Powell, William (Corby)


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Reid, Dr John


Gorst, Sir John
Riddick, Graham


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Sackville, Tom





Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Shaw, David (Dover)
Timms, Stephen


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tracey, Richard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tredinnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Waller, Gary


Spearing, Nigel
Watts, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wilkinson, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilshire, David


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wolfson, Mark


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Sumberg, David



Sweeney, Walter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)
Mr. Michael Alison and


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Donald Anderson.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dewar, Donald


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Allen, Graham
Dover, Den


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dowd, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ashby, David
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Barnes, Harry
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Barron, Kevin
Etherington, Bill


Battle, John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bayley, Hugh
Fabricant, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fishburn, Dudley


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Berry, Roger
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Forman, Nigel


Boateng, Paul
Forth, Eric


Boswell, Tim
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bradley, Keith
Foulkes, George


Brandreth, Gyles
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bright, Sir Graham
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
French, Douglas


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Galbraith, Sam


Burden, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Butler, Peter
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Butterfill, John
Garnier, Edward


Byers, Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Caborn, Richard
Gillan, Cheryl


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Mike


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harvey, Nick


Coe, Sebastian
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Coffey, Ann
Heald, Oliver


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Corston, Jean
Heppell, John


Cousins, Jim
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hodge, Margaret


Darling, Alistair
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Davidson, Ian
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Denham, John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Devlin, Tim
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)






Hoyle, Doug
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Illsley, Eric
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Ingram, Adam
Oppenheim, Phillip


Jack, Michael
Paice, James


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pawsey, James


Jenkins, Brian (S.E. Staffs)
Pickthall, Colin


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Rendel, David


Khabra, Piara S
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kirkwood, Archy
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sheerman, Barry


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Short, Clare


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Simpson, Alan


Livingstone, Ken
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Loyden, Eddie
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Soley, Clive


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spellar, John


Lynne, Ms Liz
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McCartney, Ian
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Maclennan, Robert
Stott, Roger


MacShane, Denis
Streeter, Gary


Madden, Max
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Madel, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mahon, Alice
Tipping, paddy


Major, Rt Hon John
Touhig, Don



Turner, Dennis


Marland, Paul
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Walden, George


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Ward, John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Michael, Alun
Watson, Mike


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Whitney, Ray


Milburn, Alan
Whittingdale, John


Miller, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Wigley, Dafydd


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Worthington, Tony


Morgan, Rhodri
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morley, Elliot
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mudie, George
Mr. Peter Bottomley and


Mullin, Chris
Sir Jim Lester.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 5, line 14, at end add—
'(9A) Where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, subsection (9D) applies if—

(a) the other party applies to the court, within the prescribed period, for time for further reflection; and

(b) the requirements of section 9 (except any imposed under section 9(3) are satisfied.

(9B) Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (9D) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen when the statement is received by the court.

(9C) Subsection (9D) does not apply if—

(a) at the time when the application for a divorce order is made, there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force in favour of the applicant, or of a child of the family, with a power of arrest attached under section 44; or
(b) the court is satisfied that delaying the making of a divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family.

(9D) If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of six months, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order.'.—[Mr. Leigh.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 200, Noes 196.

Division No. 108]
[10.35 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Eastham, Ken


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Alton, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Amess, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Evennett, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Faber, David


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
French, Douglas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fry, Sir Peter


Bates, Michael
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Gallie, Phil


Beggs, Roy
Gardiner, Sir George


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gill, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bendall, Vivian
Gorst, Sir John


Benton, Joe
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Booth, Hartley
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Hague, Rt Hon William


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Bright, Sir Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hanson, David


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Hawksley, Warren


Burt, Alistair
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Butcher, John
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Cash, William
Hoey, Kate


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Dafis, Cynog
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dixon, Don
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Khabra, Piara S


Duncan Smith, Iain
King, Rt Hon Tom






Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Rowlands, Ted


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lord, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McFall, John
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spearing, Nigel


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Spellar, John


Maclennan, Robert
Spicer, Sir Michael (W Dorset)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


Madel, Sir David
Spring, Richard


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sproat, Iain


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Marlow, Tony
Steinberg, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Streeter, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Sumberg, David


Mills Iain
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Timms, Stephen



Tracey, Richard


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Tredinnick, David


Murphy, Paul
Trend, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Parry, Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Patten, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Willetts, David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Reid, Dr John
Wood, Timothy


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham



Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. Michael Alison and


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Donald Anderson.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Butterfill, John


Ainsworth Robert (Cov'try NE)
Byers, Stephen


Allen, Graham
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Callaghan, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashby, David
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barnes, Harry
Carrington, Matthew


Barron, Kevin
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Battle, John
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Bayley, Hugh
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clapham, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Betts, Clive
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Boateng, Paul
Coe, Sebastian


Boswell, Tim
Coffey, Ann


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Keith
Corston, Jean


Brandreth, Gyles
Cousins, Jim


Burden, Richard
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Butler, Peter
Darling, Alistair





Davidson, Ian
Llwyd, Elfyn


Denham, John
Loyden, Eddie


Devlin, Tim
Luff, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dover, Den
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dowd, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
MacKay, Andrew


Dykes, Hugh
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eagle, Ms Angela
MacShane, Denis


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Madden, Max


Etherington, Bill
Mahon, Alice


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Major, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
Marland, Paul


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fishburn, Dudley
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Fisher, Mark
Maxton, John


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Meale, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michael, Alun


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foulkes, George
Milburn, Alan


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Miller, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Galbraith, Sam
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gapes, Mike
Morgan, Rhodri


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Morley, Elliot


Garnier, Edward
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gerrard, Neil
Mudie, George


Gillan, Cheryl
Mullin, Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Golding, Mrs Llin
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Grocott, Bruce
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Pickthall, Colin


Hall, Mike
Pike, Peter L


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pope, Greg


Harman, Ms Harriet
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Harvey, Nick
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Primarolo, Dawn


Heald, Oliver
Quin, Ms Joyce


Heppell, John
Radice, Giles


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Raynsford, Nick


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Rendel, David


Hodge, Margaret
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hoon, Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hoyle, Doug
Short, Clare


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Simpson, Alan


Hutton, John
Sims, Roger


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Ingram, Adam
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jack, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Soley, Clive


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Jenkins, Brian
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Stevenson, George


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tipping, Paddy


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Touhig, Don


Kirkwood, Archy
Turner, Dennis


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)



Knox, Sir David
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Wallace, James


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Ward, John


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Wareing, Robert N


Livingstone, Ken
Watson, Mike


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whitney, Ray


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Whittingdale, John






Wicks, Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wigley, Dafydd
Tellers for the Noes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Peter Bottomley and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Sir Jim Lester.

on accordingly agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Dame Jill Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. For 30 years I have been proud to be a loyal Back Bencher, but the vote that has just been taken is unprecedented, as is the fact that, earlier this evening, no fewer than 112 Conservative Members voted, including 11 Ministers and five Whips. Note should be taken of this extraordinary vote.

The Chairman: The hon. Lady is an important constituent of mine, but nevertheless I must tell her that that was not a valid point of order.

Mr. Patten: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: There cannot possibly be anything to add to that point, even by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Patten: On a separate point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: Order. That is a remarkable change in so few seconds.

Mr. Patten: It is a new point of order. Would it be in order for the Lord President and Leader of the House to approach you tonight if he wished to make a statement on Government business in light of this evening's vote, and the fact that an overwhelming majority—

The Chairman: Order. The Chairman does not anticipate anything that is likely to happen later.

Bill (Clauses 5 and 7), as amended, to be reported.

To lie upon the Table.

National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

RESTRICTIONS ON FUTURE LIABILITIES

'.—(1) This Act does not apply to any liability in excess of £5 million incurred after the Act is passed unless the conditions referred to in subsection (2) are fulfilled.

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) the agreement of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury were obtained before the liability was incurred, and
(b) a statement has been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State setting out the terms of agreement and the consent referred to in paragraph (a) above.'.—[Mr. Barron.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 1 is about giving back to Parliament the right to scrutinise and monitor decisions relating to the national health service, as they might mean a call on the public purse. It would ensure that the Executive, in the form of the Secretary of State for Health, and the Exchequer must approve the borrowing. It would also provide that the House be informed that new liabilities have been approved and will be incurred. Neither of those checks applies to existing liabilities; the new clause seeks to place them on any future liabilities below the sum of £5 million. It is constructive and designed to strengthen the Bill.
Hon. Members who missed the Bill's Second Reading might wonder why we have tabled the new clause. We believe that it is not right or proper that the Executive should effectively let people in various outposts of the now fragmented national health service take decisions about public borrowing that has been okayed neither by the Executive in Whitehall nor by the House.
Our case is that, currently, anything up to £5 billion could be borrowed by a national health service trust without statutory protection and without any proper Executive approval or parliamentary scrutiny. It is a unique condition that public liabilities are incurred entirely without public approval or knowledge. We want that changed.
The new clause would guarantee parliamentary scrutiny and ensure that borrowing by NHS bodies was approved in advance by the Secretary of State. It is a straightforward measure that the Government should have thought of but, instead of considering carefully what the Bill proposed, Ministers have stumbled blindly to this point. They have been blinded by their desperate desire to revive the private finance initiative in the health service, which is in a state of chaos.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Is my hon. Friend aware of concerns expressed to me only last week by my local health authority about the implications of the private finance initiative for the long-term status of health authorities? Can he assure us that, when there is a change of Government, steps will be taken to resolve the problem?

Mr. Barron: We are prepared to give the assurance that the private finance initiative will not take over clinical practice in the national health service or influence decisions that should be taken by clinicians who are in the NHS for the public good rather than for other purposes, as the PFI players will be.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to gold-plate the private finance initiative in the health service. Since their opening remarks on Second Reading, Ministers have stopped pretending that the Bill has any other purpose than effectively to underwrite liabilities that we thought were quite the right type of risk to go with the benefits that the private sector receives. Our new clause would bring back what the Government are intent on giving away. It would ensure that the Secretary of State holds himself accountable for his current manipulation of the PFI rules and the constant change that is taking place under them.
It cannot be right that health service bodies can borrow against a blanket guarantee from the Secretary of State without the Secretary of State's having to approve such liabilities as and when they are incurred. It also cannot be right that no Minister will be responsible to Parliament for sanctioning such borrowing as and when it occurs, and that the Treasury will be left paying the private sector's bills without ever having agreed to do so.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), tried to claim in Committee that, by approving external financing limits, Ministers will approve new liabilities. It is our contention that that is wrong. What the Under-Secretary claims counts as proper parliamentary accountability is in fact some vague approval of health service bodies' hypothetical ability to consider using borrowed money. They are hardly the tightly defined measures that our new clause proposes.
It is equally important that the Under-Secretary's alternative does not represent proper parliamentary scrutiny. It certainly does not offer the openness and accountability that we want. The Under-Secretary has an obligation to explain where that openness and accountability will be found in his PFI support system. When and through what mechanisms can Parliament scrutinise the cheques that will be written to PFI contractors? How can Parliament hold the Secretary of State to account for agreeing to underwrite private contractors' returns for, in some instances, as much as 60 or 70 years into the future?
As we understand it, contracts of that length are running at the moment. What does that mean for change in the health service, as has occurred in the past 20 or 30 years, new medical practice and new science that is now taken on board practically every day? We are not too sure whether we are disagreeing with a straitjacket not only on public liability but on the flexibility that the health service needs to be able to change and to deliver increasingly better health care for years to come.
What is the device for limiting the level of exposure of the public purse to those gold-plated risks in the health PFI? We recognise that the Government have made a mess of investment in the national health service owing to their incompetent handling of the PFI, but is it right that they should ask Parliament to dig them out of the mire by passing the Bill and, in doing so, keep all of us in Parliament, including Conservative Members, in the dark about decisions that will be taken on our local health services in years to come?
We want parliamentary scrutiny of the private sector's involvement in the national health service. We want the secret system surrounding health service borrowing from the private sector—including the amounts of money, the terms of repayment, and the lengths of deals—made much more transparent than it is in the current chaos. Our new clause delivers scrutiny, accountability and openness, and I commend it to the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): The new clause returns to the issue that we discussed at some length in Committee and relates to the scrutiny and control of hospital trust borrowing and liabilities by the Government and the House. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will recall that he tabled an amendment in Committee to increase scrutiny and control by the procedures that are repeated in the new clause. He will recall that my objection to his amendment in Committee was that it would bring about a huge increase in bureaucracy.
He is asking that not only a contract that is part of the PFI, but every contract—including a supply contract, for example—should be brought before the House, and agreed by the Secretary of State for Health, by the Treasury, and, ultimately, by Parliament. The hon. Gentleman agreed, on reflection, that his amendment was not entirely sensible because it would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to spend his entire time signing bits of paper. If the amendment had been intended to disrupt the sensible working of the health service, it would have been effective.

Mr. Barron: Who takes the decisions now about public expenditure in the health service? To whom is he accountable?

11 pm

Mr. Horam: It is obvious that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes those decisions. The hon. Gentleman's comment is ludicrous. His amendment, which he wisely withdrew on reflection, would have obliged my right hon. Friend to sign every contract and to look at every liability incurred by any trust. One can imagine what would have happened. The hon. Gentleman would have built up a huge, bureaucratic nightmare. Anyway, he has since seen sense.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Horam: No, because I would like to carry on.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley has seen sense and we now have a new clause that limits the damage to £5 million. He is willing to let through anything below that bottom line. Even with that quite high limit, the new clause would involve extra regulation. That is interesting, in view of the fact that the Labour leader, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), pointed out only this week that the Labour party is now the party of deregulation.
This evening, the hon. Member for Rother Valley and his hon. Friends are proposing extra regulation. They have not quite caught up with up the mood that has been evident in their party this week. The mood may change next week, but this week it is for deregulation—although we now have a


proposal for extra regulation. Week by week, Labour changes. We would like a little consistency from Labour Members.
The new clause would involve extra regulation. We are not simply talking about the PFI. As I have already told the hon. Gentleman, if the new clause were accepted, it would affect not only PFI contracts and liabilities incurred under them, but supplies. For example, if the NHS supplies authority had a contract to supply bandages to an NHS trust, that contract would be covered by the new clause. In effect, the Secretary of State, the Treasury and Parliament would have to look into every contract for bandages involving national health service trusts. That is the nonsense proposed by the hon. Gentleman. It shows clearly—

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Horam: No. It is late and the hon. Gentleman should have made his points in Committee or on Second Reading.
The new clause is regulatory when we are trying to deregulate—I thought that the hon. Member for Rother Valley was also trying to deregulate—and it would affect everything, not just the PFI, which I thought was its object.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Horam: No.
The new clause would centralise. Trusts have the freedom and ability to run their own business. The hon. Gentleman seeks to bring all control back to the House of Commons, to the Treasury and to the Secretary of State for Health, in a heavily centralised way. The new clause is regulatory, heavy-handed and bureaucratic.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Horam: No.
The new clause would also add further delay. If all the relevant contracts had to go through the suggested procedure, the decision-making process would be lengthened, so there would be additional delay. Most important—

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Horam: All right. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: I want to go back a few sentences. The Minister mentioned the effect that the new clause would have on supply contracts. What would the residual liabilities on, for example, the sale of bandages be? The Minister made quite a point about that.

Mr. Horam: The whole point of the Bill is to ensure that liabilities are recognised by my right hon. Friend. That is the fact of the matter. Liabilities do not occur in that case, so why does the hon. Gentleman support the new clause? No problem arises, so the new clause is unnecessary.
My final point in reply to the hon. Member for Rother Valley is that the new clause—

Mr. Bayley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Horam: No, I have already given way once on the point and, frankly, it was a waste of time, so I do not feel that there is any point in giving way again—[Interruption.]

Mr. Bayley: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for York must see that the Minister is not giving way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Order. I certainly do not expect to hear anything from the Whips. If the Minister is not giving way, the hon. Gentleman should resume his seat.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Member for York will recall that he had a very good deal from me in Committee, so he ought not to push his luck now.
The new clause is unnecessary. The controls are perfectly satisfactory as they are, and we spelled them out at some length in Committee. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Rother Valley more than once, there are the external financing limits, which are agreed at the beginning of the year, and monitored—

Ms Harriet Harman: They are voluntary.

Mr. Horam: They are agreed at the beginning of the year, and then monitored quarterly. If anything is going wrong, it will be spotted quickly by the NHS executive. That is the effective managerial control that is in place, and it is backed by statute.

Ms Harman: It is not.

Mr. Horam: It is backed by statute.

Mr. Barron: Where?

Mr. Horam: If the hon. Gentleman reads section 10(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990—

Ms Harman: indicated dissent.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Lady is wrong. Section 10(2) of the 1990 Act gives my right hon. Friend the power to fix financial controls. [Interruption.] That is the fact of the matter; the hon. Lady is simply wrong. She should ask her researcher to go back and look at it again.

Mr. Clive Betts: rose—

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: rose—

Mr. Horam: I shall not give way.
The controls that are in place, both managerial and statutory, are perfectly adequate to deal with the situation. The new clause is entirely unnecessary, and I therefore urge the House to reject it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister's response has not taken the debate much further.


In fairness to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I must say that the question is implicit in the new clause. The £5 million could have been £6 million or £7 million; that is not the fundamental question. The question is: is there a limit on the amount of money that any trust can incur as a liability which, of itself, will force that obligation to be called in to be double-checked?
That is a perfectly proper question, and there are two reasons for asking it, which I offer to the Minister for his slightly more considered reflection. First, the NHS does not have a wonderful reputation for entering into capital commitments that prove to be terribly wise. Plenty of things go wrong, as the Minister may recall.
The litany of things that the NHS has done under the arrangements that the Government have introduced has not always been a happy one. Contracts for the health service in Wales have not been satisfactory; neither have the contracts for computers in the west country, which cost millions of pounds. Nearer to home, and more recently, money has been wasted on contracts for computers in Greenwich. The Minister will be aware of that. There are all sorts of such obligations and implications.
All the money involved is public money, and the bills have all been incurred by trusts. The monitoring system and all the controls—the accounting officers, the external financing limits and so on—have not worked so far. That is the first issue, but let us assume that it will all be dealt with by some method.
We also have a second issue. It is no secret, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has conceded the fact, that the Government are now clearly seeking to replace public sector expenditure on capital projects in the health service with private expenditure. In this financial year, and thereafter, public expenditure on such projects will go down, and were it not for the private finance initiative there would unarguably be less money spent on the health service than in the previous couple of years.
As I have said to Ministers before, the Government have never obtained parliamentary endorsement for the proposal that we should build 10, 20 or 50 per cent. of our hospitals with private money under the PFI. All the evidence suggests that the PFI is a dubious way forward and not yet a certain and secure one. I guess that the Treasury Committee will come into the next debate if the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) pursues new clauses 2 and 3. It has raised questions about public expenditure.
We are entitled to ask the Minister what figure for incurred liability the Government believe should be authorised by central Government rather than by local, delegated trusts that meet in secret. If not £5 million, is it £10 million, £20 million, £50 million or £100 million? Is there a figure, or are the Government entirely happy with the present regime?

Ms Harman: Is it £5 billion?

Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Lady says, is it £5 billion? Is there a figure sufficiently large that it should be called in automatically? Big planning applications cases are called in by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Big national health service expenditure projects that involve borrowing should be called in and examined centrally.
It would be different if we could attend local hospital trust meetings, hear the debates, see the submissions and elect people to the trusts, but we cannot do any of that. The process is secret and we hear about it later. The Audit Commission or the National Audit Office reports two years later, when it is too late to stop a project that may have gone wrong.
I hope that the Minister understands that there is significant public concern that the mechanisms for accountability, democracy and the assessment of importance are not being dealt with adequately. The Government say that everything is fine because it has worked in the past and no matter how big the liability, they believe that it can be incurred by the present trust structure meeting undemocratically in secret. Many people, and not only Opposition Members, are unhappy with the present regime. The Minister must give a better answer to persuade them than he has given us.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: I thought that the Minister's response was both confusing and more worrying than I had expected. He sought to muddy the waters by introducing the question of payment for bandages. He somehow equated that with the building of a large district general hospital. Although it seems silly to equate the two, one of my problems with the private finance initiative concerns where the dividing line is drawn between when the buying of supplies involves PFI and when it involves normal contractual arrangements. That confusion pervades the Government, too. There is no clear definition of what the PFI is. It is a heterogeneous idea that can involve leasing, building, or running things. The parameters have not yet been clearly drawn. That is part of the problem in discussing it and part of the reasoning behind the new clause.
There are two issues involved in the PFI, which I shall deal with when I come to new clause 2. The main one is about who carries the risk in long-term agreements. Currently, in Scotland, Stonehaven hospital is out for tender under the PFI. Three submissions have been made, one of them by the local trust, yet none has been made public. They are not going to be made public—not even that from the local trust, which is a public body. No one knows how much money is involved, how long the leases will be or anything else.
What liability will the Scottish Office and the Treasury be taking on? What length of time will be involved? Are we to be lumbered with a hospital with a 100-year lease that could be obsolete, but for which we have to accept the residual liabilities and so keep it going against our wishes? How great are the liabilities? It is no good the Minister saying that that would require every contract to brought down here for scrutiny. That is impractical. That is one of the problems of the PFI, and the Government should have thought about that before they got into it.
There must come a dividing line, beyond which value Parliament and the Treasury have to scrutinise a contract. That is the issue. The external financing limit is no good because it can be got round. We do not know whether the EFLs will be breached in the Stonehaven contract.
There must come a point when the Treasury has to say, "We want to know what the liability is here. We want to consider it." Unless the Minister comes up with some answer on that, we are storing up trouble for future Governments.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: It is entirely understandable that the Minister does not want to accept interventions, given the manner with which he dealt with the only one that he accepted—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). He was attempting to suggest that the intervention was a waste of time, but it exposed the fact that the Minister's answer was not appropriate.
The National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill has nothing to do with bandages, or with over-centralisation or regulation. We are talking about the proper scrutiny of public money. The Minister is attempting to confuse those issues and, therefore, to participate in debate. If that is what he is going to do, he will provoke more hon. Members to intervene to a greater extent. He has a duty to answer properly the point being made in the new clause and in my hon. Friend's intervention.

Mr. Spearing: I would not have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but for the unfortunate discourtesy of the Minister in declining to give way to the second intervention of the debate. For reasons that you will know of, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think that we can put the origin of such discourtesy on the institute of higher education that the Minister happened to attend, so I must look for some other explanation. I suspect that it is the weakness of his case. With due courtesy, perhaps I can test that out.
The Minister said that the new clause was unnecessary regulation and that there were proper scrutiny, audit procedures and this, that and the other. In other words, "Don't worry, it's all right, it's been dealt with." I shall put an actual case to the Minister and ask him, if he catches your eye to reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to confirm or deny the scenario.
In the Newham Healthcare NHS trust area, an old hospital is about to close—St. Andrew's, Bromley-by-Bow. Its facilities—alas, lacking 24 beds—will be rebuilt or built into the existing Newham general hospital. It may cost about £20 million or £25 million and the trust has been told that the money will not be available from health service or Government sources, as it used to be, but will have to first be considered under the private finance initiative.
I understand that that is a long procedure. One has to produce a scheme, put something out to tender, get banks, insurance organisations and perhaps even European institutions to say whether they will plan, build and take responsibility to some extent for running the newly built part of Newham general hospital. The anxious people of Newham and I have been told that it is going to be a lengthy process and, even at the end of it, there will be no guarantee that such PFI money is available.
Let us suppose that it might be. I suggest to the Minister that the money that is available, might be at a cost premium compared with that from Treasury or other sources. Of course, we will not necessarily know that—or will we? The terms of the PFI may or may not be made public. So my first question is that of transparency.
Let us suppose that the terms are made public and, at some stage, there is a public liability. Clearly, if the Newham Healthcare trust is changed—as it might well be if, alas, the present Administration continue and there is some change in the status of such trusts—some liability

may be placed on the Minister. Something might go wrong. The hospital might have to stay. There will be a liability in respect of the money that has been contracted.
What will happen then? I assume that the amount of liability will not be known unless there is an audit in the Treasury or in the Department of Health; that it will not have been approved openly by the House; and, as the Minister mentioned, that every single contract of liability—such as that contained in the new clause—may not be practical.
Surely liabilities for large construction—such as that at Newham—should be made open to the taxpayers of Newham, to the taxpayers of London and to the representatives of the taxpayers in the House. The Minister has not given any reasons why that should not be so. If he cannot openly and clearly show us why that should not be the case, his discourtesy lies with the weakness of his case rather than any defect of his education or his personality and character, which some of us have known for some years.

Mr. Betts: My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) was correct: the Minister did not answer the questions about how public scrutiny can be exercised over non-elected people who are appointed to these boards in advance of long-term commitments. That is absolutely crucial. If any hon. Member tries to ask questions of any Government Department about the private finance initiative, as soon as they get to the issue of individual schemes and projects, they are told that it is commercial confidentiality and that it cannot release the information because it would breach confidentiality with the contractors with whom they are negotiating and with whom they are entering into contracts.
We can see some of the difficulties over intellectual property rights in these schemes, particularly when contractors have been asked to come up with new ways of doing things. The new clause provides a way of having accountability to elected representatives so that non-elected people cannot commit public funds for the future without any public control. That is a simple point, and the Minister has not answered it.
I understand that the Department of Health has instituted a registration scheme for PFI and other projects. This came out of the evidence given to the Treasury Select Committee by Treasury officials. They pointed out that work had been done to various Departments and the Department of Health had instituted a registration scheme whereby hospital trusts were invited to give details of projects that they had entered into. It was also revealed that the registration scheme was voluntary—that trusts are not compelled to give notice to the Department of the schemes that they are entering.
If the Minister cannot accept that he and his colleagues should be approving schemes costing over £5 million, he should accept that the trusts should give him notice and that the schemes should be registered. In addition, the registration scheme should be made public so that everyone can see what future commitments are being entered into. The Minister must address that issue.
The Minister was in danger of misleading the House on another issue. He mentioned external financing limits and said that they are mechanisms for control. Has the Minister thought to ask himself how many years ahead we have EFLs for? There are commitments in the Red


Book for a number of years ahead. How long are trusts committing public expenditure for by entering into PFI schemes? For far longer ahead than the Government have agreed EFLs for.
There are no control mechanisms, there are no monitoring levels and there are no real controls of public expenditure against which trusts are committing future expenditure. The Minister says that they can do that without public control and scrutiny or democratic accountability. Perhaps the Minister would like to come back to the EFL point, because I think he was in danger of misleading the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not the case on this amendment—maybe the next one.

Mr. Betts: I am sure that at some stage the Minister would want to address hon. Members on whether he has misled the House on that very important political point. Finally, I shall do a comparison with the way that the Government control local authority borrowing. We are talking about non-elected bodies committing public expenditure, and we are asking for some control by Ministers.
Every pound that local authorities borrow is controlled by central Government by general approvals or, in many cases—increasingly—by specific credit approvals for individual projects. Even when local authorities spend their own capital receipts, they are controlled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of local authorities is extensive, but I should be grateful if he would restrict it for the moment to future liabilities as they affect the health service.

Mr. Betts: I was merely drawing attention to the fact that local authorities are democratically elected but are controlled, not merely in capital borrowing but in spending their receipts. We are discussing trusts that are completely unaccountable for the way in which they commit, not millions, but billions of pounds of public money. That is the comparison that we seek to draw.
Opposition Members are fighting for democratic control and proper scrutiny; Ministers do not appear to care about either.

Mr. Steinberg: I also had not intended to speak in the debate, but the Minister's discourtesy in not allowing several interventions forces us to make speeches to make our points. If he had been prepared to answer a simple question in the first place, we should not have had to stand up and speak.
My local health trust, the Dryburn trust, is in the process of accepting a preferred PFI bid. Unlike the experience of some hon. Members with other trusts, I can honestly say that I have had a very good relationship with the trust. I have a good relationship with the chairman, who has kept me informed of what has happened all along the line and freely given me information about all aspects and about bids that have been made.
Recently, I wrote the Minister a letter about the worrying revenue implications of the bid. The bid may possibly mean that the health commission, the purchaser,

will have to pay about 11.5 per cent. interest charges over about 30 years. That is a considerable amount of public liability, which the public purse will have to find from taxation, and it is likely that the health commission will be unable to find that money over that period.
I want a response from the Minister. We have waited 15 years for a new district general hospital. Year after year, we were promised public funds with which to build it. In January 1994, the hospital was approved, and then it had to go out to a PFI bid and was delayed until October 1994. Now we are in a contract situation.
Let us suppose that everyone is reasonably satisfied with the PFI bid and that the trust accepts it and goes along to the health commission with the public liability of two or three times the amount of revenue which has to be paid each year to pay for that PFI bid. What will happen to my district general hospital and the PFI bid if the health commission says that it cannot afford to take on that public liability for the next 30 years? What will happen to my hospital? Am I going to get a hospital out of the PFI?
Will the Minister give the people of Durham and my constituents a guarantee that he will make Durham a special case and provide that money for the next 30 years? Or will he tell us, "You will not get the hospital that you have been promised for 15 years. Tough—you have had it"? Or will he say, "Right, I will now look at it in the public sector again and have a public bid"?
I want to know tonight what will happen if Durham County health commission says that it cannot afford that public liability for the next 30 years, which is probably considerably more than would have been spent if the hospital had been built in the public sector.

Mr. Bayley: I shall be brief.
The House has a responsibility to scrutinise and approve Government expenditure. The PFI, put simply, is a hire purchase scheme for the purchase of goods and services. If I may draw a parallel: if I came to the House seeking a Bill in which the law of the land would underwrite the hire purchase agreements that I might enter into should I default on those payments—if the House were minded to enter into such legislation—it would want some control over how many hire purchase agreements I took out, and it would want to assure itself that I would be in a position to meet the payments on those hire purchase agreements.
The amendment asks that the House has control over the expenditure consequences of liabilities incurred by the NHS under the private finance initiative. The Minister has not explained why the Government believe that the House should be denied the opportunity to exercise control over future liabilities that may be incurred if a health service trust enters into a hire purchase agreement that it cannot afford to meet.

Mr. Horam: I shall deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley). He levelled the charge that the private finance initiative is a hire purchase agreement. That is not so, because a PFI project must demonstrate that it represents better value for money than a conventional publicly financed alternative. That is the test.
11.30 pm
It must demonstrate value for money in several ways. First, the trust must examine the business case over time and decide whether it will put it to a health commission or health authority. The hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) raised that point. The health authority then considers the case and decides whether it is affordable. As the hon. Gentleman is aware from his knowledge of the situation in Durham, every health authority receives a stream of revenue from the NHS Executive. Therefore, the authority must gauge the cost of the two alternatives—one publicly financed and the other privately financed—over the lifetime of the project. It will then reach a decision on that basis. We have not yet reached that point in Durham's case.

Mr. Steinberg: What happens if the health commission says that it cannot afford it?

Mr. Horam: I do not really want to respond to seated interventions. It would depend on which alternative it decides upon after comparing the items of expenditure—one financed publicly and the other privately. It must then decide what it can afford. I am not familiar with the details of the hon. Gentleman's example, but the health authority may decide that it cannot afford either scheme or it may opt for another scheme with fewer consequences for future revenue support. Neither scheme may pass the test.
If the health authority chooses to build a new hospital, for example, it must then decide which of the two schemes put before it is more likely to yield value for money over the next 30 to 60 years. The schemes are not hire purchase agreements in any sense: they compare private finance with public finance and determine best value for money for the public purse.
The second test is affordability—whether a health commission or health authority deems a scheme to be affordable. If it decides that it is not, the project will not proceed—whether it is financed publicly or privately. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that point.

Mr. Steinberg: With due respect to the Minister, that is my point. If the health commission says that it cannot afford to fund the PFI bid, my constituents will not get their new hospital, for which they have been waiting for 15 years. I seek a guarantee from the Minister tonight. His predecessor, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), almost gave such a guarantee: he said that, if the PFI bid was unsuccessful, he would consider a public sector bid. If the health commission says that it cannot afford the PFI bid of 11.5 per cent. over 30 years, but it can afford 5 per cent. over 60 years, will the Minister provide a guarantee that the hospital will go ahead with public sector funds?

Mr. Horam: If it could be demonstrated that the public sector project was better value for money than the private sector project, the publicly financed project would be more likely to go ahead. I do not know the particular circumstances of Durham, but the proposal is still under discussion, so I cannot comment. It may be that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot give him a definite answer. However, I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about his particular case. The

project is still in negotiation and open for discussion, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman now understands the way it will be decided.

Mr. Betts: Is not the fundamental dilemma that, if a comparison is made between PFI and public sector funding and the PFI is more expensive, a scheme cannot be funded that way? At the same time, if public funding would be cheaper, there is no guarantee that it will be available, because public sector finance has been cut to allow PFI schemes to grow.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention had absolutely nothing to do with new clause 1.

Mr. Horam: Anyway, whether or not it had anything to do with the new clause—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not anyway—the Minister will not respond to that intervention. He should address the new clause.

Mr. Horam: I am duly reprimanded, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Many Opposition Members questioned the procedure by which schemes will be checked. First, they will have to pass the test of being better value for money than a fully worked out scheme alternatively financed by the public sector. The second test is that, where a full business case is worked out, and if the capital value is more than £10 million, the scheme will be scrutinised by the NHS Executive and the Treasury.
If the value is more than £50 million—the last two schemes were valued at £170 million in the case of Norwich and £70 million in the case of Swindon—the project must go to Ministers. That is the scheduling level with which a scheme must advance side by side. Those are the controls, and there will ultimately be a check by Parliament in the appropriation accounts and the normal Departmental—

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the figures be published?

Mr. Horam: Of course they will be exposed. Normal parliamentary procedures will be available for checking.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: My hon. Friend referred to the new Norwich district general hospital, which we hope will be built as soon as possible. Can my hon. Friend say, while remaining in order, what would be the effect of Labour's proposal on the prospects for that hospital?

Mr. Horam: They would cause further delay. When we launched that scheme, we pointed out in the press release that the scheme was being brought forward five years earlier than would have been the case if there had not been a PFI scheme.

Ms Harman: That is not true.

Mr. Horam: It is true.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has quoted the 1990 press release about the new hospital in Norwich that was put out by the present


Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Secretary of State for Health. What does the Minister mean when he says that the scheme will start earlier? It has been delayed for the last six years.

Mr. Horam: That is not true. If the Norwich scheme had to be in the queue for public financing, as the Opposition wish, it would not be progressing on the time scale that it has. The Opposition would delay schemes year after year. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made the point well, when he read out a long list of conventionally financed schemes that were part of our NHS history, whichever party was in power. They were object lessons in delay, overspending, and so on. The Chelsea and Westminster hospital, and the national library, are examples of publicly financed schemes that got out of control.
There is no magic way to keep publicly financed schemes under way, never mind privately financed schemes. Under any Government, the record of publicly financed schemes is not good. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will recognise that fact, because he is honest about such matters.
I contend—we discussed the point in Committee—that one of the points of the PFI is not only for a consortium to build a new project, such as a new hospital, but for it to have the responsibility for maintaining the building thereafter. That is why the PFI will bring us the possibility of greater—not less—control over the revenue consequences to public funds in the future. That is the reality.

Mr. Simon Hughes: That may be the reality, but the Minister must concede that all the professional evidence given to the Treasury Select Committee and the evidence given by the Treasury last year is that the case is not yet proved. The theory is that the PFI will do that, but the danger is that it will take us one step further away from control over that consortium of builders, which is a profit-making organisation. The danger is that the consortium will put its prices up and will make even more profit at the expense of the taxpayer and the NHS.

Mr. Horam: The organisation involved will not profit more, because no privately financed scheme will be agreed unless it is better value for money than a publicly financed scheme. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point: we cannot forecast the future—we are talking about a theoretical situation—but that is true of any scheme.

Mr. Hughes: indicated assent.

Mr. Horam: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. Proper checks are properly written into the legislation. The normal checks are there, including the strong check of monitoring by the NHS Executive. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Mr. Barron: We would be happier about the checks if people knew about them. There is no openness in the current situation. Through new clause 1, we seek to bring openness, accountability and scrutiny to the delivery of health care and expenditure by the Department of Health.
I do not intend to go into great detail, but perhaps the Minister will write to me and to other hon. Members to tell us which individual trust holds a contract for bandages worth more than £5 million, as I was intrigued by that comment.
My only other comment on the Minister's speech is that we cannot accept the charge of causing bureaucracy in the national health service from a Government who have created so much bureaucracy in the health service in the past 10 years that most people, including clinicians and managers, would like to see the back of them tomorrow. We do not accept the charge. Our request for accountability, openness and the ability for all Members of Parliament to scrutinise decisions taken by the national health service would cause less than a tenth of the bureaucracy that the Government have forced on the health service.
We cannot see eye to eye with the Government on the new clause. I withdrew it in Committee to give the Minister a chance to consider whether he was prepared to accept what we think is common sense. Given that he is not prepared to do so, I invite hon. Members to join us in the Lobby.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 174.

Division No. 109]
[11.43 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Harvey, Nick


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Henderson, Doug


Allen, Graham
Heppell, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Armstrong, Hilary
Hoey, Kate


Barnes, Harry
Hoon, Geoffrey


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Battle, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bayley, Hugh
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Hutton, John


Beggs, Roy
Illsley, Eric


Bermingham, Gerald
Ingram, Adam


Berry, Roger
Jenkins, Brian (S. E. Staff)


Betts, Clive
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Bradley, Keith
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Burden, Richard
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Byers, Stephen
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Callaghan, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Khabra, Piara S


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Clapham, Michael
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Loyden, Eddie


Coffey, Ann
Lynne, Ms Liz


Corston, Jean
McAvoy, Thomas


Cousins, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Darling, Alistair
McKelvey, William


Davidson, Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dewar, Donald
McLeish, Henry


Dowd, Jim
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Mahon, Alice


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Flynn, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maxton, John


Foulkes, George
Meale, Alan


Galbraith, Sam
Michael, Alun


Gapes, Mike
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Milburn, Alan


Hall, Mike
Miller, Andrew


Hanson, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morgan, Rhodri






Morley, Elliot
Skinner, Dennis


Mudie, George
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Spearing, Nigel


Pickthall, Colin
Spellar, John


Pike, Peter L
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pope, Greg
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Primarolo, Dawn
Tipping, Paddy


Purchase, Ken
Touhig, Don


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Dennis


Reid, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rendel, David
Wareing, Robert N


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Watson, Mike


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wicks, Malcolm


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Short, Clare
Mr. Joe Benton and


Simpson, Alan
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.




NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Amess, David
Fishburn, Dudley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Batiste, Spencer
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Sir Peter


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallie, Phil


Brandreth, Gyles
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Gillan, Cheryl


Bright, Sir Graham
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gorst, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butcher, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butler, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butterfill, John
Hague, Rt Hon William


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harris, David


Clappison, James
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jenkin, Bernard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan, Alan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evennett, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Faber, David
Lang, Fit Hon Ian


Fabricant, Michael
Legg, Barry





Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lidington, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sweeney, Walter


Marland, Paul
Sykes, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Merchant, Piers
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Page, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilkinson, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Richards, Rod
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew



Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Michael Bates and


Sackville, Tom
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and question proposed, That further consideration be now adjourned.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 80

Division No. 110]
[11.55 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Baldry, Tony
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Congdon, David


Bates, Michael
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Booth, Hartley
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brandreth, Gyles
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bright, Sir Graham
Dover, Den


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan, Alan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butcher, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butler, Peter
Evennett, David






Faber, David
Marland, Paul


Fabricant, Michael
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fishburn, Dudley
Mates, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Merchant, Piers


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Neubert, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gale, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Norris, Steve


Gill, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gillan, Cheryl
Ottaway, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Page, Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Paice, James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gorst, Sir John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Richards, Rod


Hague, Rt Hon William
Riddick, Graham


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Robathan, Andrew


Hampson, Dr Keith
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Harris, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hawksley, Warren
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Heald, Oliver
Sims, Roger


Hendry, Charles
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Horam, John
Soames, Nicholas


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Spink, Dr Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Jack, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Jenkin, Bernard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jessel, Toby
Streeter, Gary


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sweeney, Walter


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Sykes, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Tredinnick, David


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Legg, Barry
Walden, George


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Waller, Gary


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Ward, John


Lidington, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lord, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Luff, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


MacKay, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Maclean, Rt Hon David



McLoughlin, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maitland, Lady Olga
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Malone, Gerald
Mr. Roger Knapman.





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Barnes, Harry
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Barron, Kevin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bayley, Hugh
McAvoy, Thomas


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
McCartney, Ian


Beggs, Roy
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
McLeish, Henry


Betts, Clive
Mahon, Alice


Boateng, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Bradley, Keith
Meale, Alan


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Michael, Alun


Burden, Richard
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Byers, Stephen
Milburn, Alan


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Clapham, Michael
Morgan, Rhodri


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Morley, Elliot


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mudie, George


Coffey, Ann
Pike, Peter L


Corston, Jean
Pope, Greg


Darling, Alistair
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Davidson, Ian
Primarolo, Dawn


Dewar, Donald
Purchase, Ken


Dowd, Jim
Rendel, David


Galbraith, Sam
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hall, Mike
Rowlands, Ted


Hanson, David
Salmond, Alex


Harman, Ms Harriet
Simpson, Alan


Harvey, Nick
Skinner, Dennis


Henderson, Doug
Spellar, John


Heppell, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Steinberg, Gerry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wallace, James


Hutton, John
Watson, Mike


Illsley, Eric
Worthington, Tony


Ingram, Adam



Jenkins Brian (S.E. Staffs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Mr. Joe Benton and


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Further consideration adjourned.

Ms Harman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for the Government to explain why, when they apparently wanted to push Government business through the House, we have had the shambles of their abandoning it and seeking that further consideration be adjourned? Is the shambles of the Government and of the private finance initiative in the health service?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that I need to answer that.

Mr. Alan Veale (Birth Record)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The debate that I have initiated on behalf of and at the request of my constituent, Mr. Alan Charles Veale, relates to a rather sad series of events. My sympathies for my constituent arise partly because I used to practise at the Bar, where, among many other matters, I dealt with family law. The debate concerns the family case that has never been properly resolved.
The facts briefly are that my constituent Mr. Veale was originally married to a lady whose maiden name was Caroline—or Carly—Mary Lacey in July 1981. A male child, Tarran James Veale, was born to the then Mrs. Veale on 27 April 1987, and the birth was registered by the mother, registering Mr. Alan Veale—now my constituent—as the father, on 13 May 1987. Mr. Veale believes, and has abundant evidence to prove, that he was erroneously registered as the father. The mother told him very shortly after the birth that the true father was another man with whom his wife had been having an affair.
Mr. Veale also knows that blood tests were subsequently made by a Dr. Grant, using samples taken from the mother, the child, Mr. Veale and the other man. Those tests prove that Mr. Veale was not the father. Mr. Veale is blood group O and the child is blood group A rhesus negative, which is known to the courts as an exclusion result. All that was established to the entire satisfaction of the courts seven years ago. Sadly, Mr. Veale cannot now establish those facts to officialdom's satisfaction, and his problems in trying to do so are the basis of this short debate.
Mr. Veale began to take steps to correct the formal registration of Tarran's birth in 1992. Before that, however, he had not expected problems, since in the year after the child's birth, not only had the blood test established Mr. Veale's non-paternity, but an affiliation order was made in the courts against the other man. As far back as 1988, on the mother's application, the other man was recorded by Weymouth county court as the father of the child.
It is part of my and my constituent's contention that such a finding by a properly constituted court, based on proper blood test evidence, should be sufficient to allow the correction of the erroneous registration of birth. At present, it appears that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, now the Office of National Statistics—a somewhat Orwellian name—does not accept that the finding by the court is sufficient.
In 1992, after all the other proceedings arising from the marriage—the so-called ancillary relief proceedings—had finished, Mr. Veale began to seek to correct the erroneous birth registration. It is important to note that the court dealing with ancillary relief matters also accepted the clear evidence that the child was not what is known in law as a child of the marriage. Sadly, it was at this stage, in 1992, that Mr. Veale's real problems began.
Mr. Veale found that the procedures of what is now the Office for National Statistics stood in his way, as it was discovered that Dr. Grant, who had taken the blood tests,

had, sadly, died in 1992. Dr. Grant's records of the blood tests he had taken, after being kept for a time after his death, had been destroyed. I discovered that, on my constituent's behalf, late in 1994. Frustratingly, the records had been shredded as recently as the beginning of 1994, before anybody had requested that they be kept.
The problem with Office for National Statistics procedures is that, to correct an erroneous entry of a registration of birth, the office requires, by law, two statutory declarations from two different people with knowledge of the facts. Mr. Veale himself obviously provided one declaration. However, the ancillary relief proceedings arising from the divorce from his ex-wife had been very bitter, and she has consistently refused to provide another statutory declaration, even though she had initiated the affiliation order proceedings against the real father.
It is part of the burden of my submission to my hon. Friend the Minister that the rules of the Office for National Statistics—or, if necessary, primary legislation—should be changed so that, in a case like this one, the application to a court by the ex-wife naming another man as the father should be treated as if it were a statutory declaration and should be valid later, even if the ex-wife later, as in this case, refused to co-operate or, to put another case, the ex-wife died after making such an application for an affiliation order.
At present, my constituent finds himself caught in a tricky Catch-22 position. He can apparently do nothing while the ex-wife, who was at fault all the way through the proceedings, can frustrate the correction of her own erroneous registration of the birth. That has wider implications, especially for Child Support Agency cases, unless the Office for National Statistics and/or the law can be changed.
The superintendent registrar of Dorset county council, Mrs. Heather Downie at Weymouth, has been sympathetic to my constituent since first contacted in 1993, but her hands are tied by the procedures of the Office for National Statistics, and the office says that the statute law concerned is section 29(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. The deputy registrar-general, Mr. Ribbins, wrote to me in August 1994 to say that he was sympathetic, but that his hands were tied by statute.
Subsequent to that letter to me in August 1994, there were further unhelpful developments. The man who assisted with the late Dr. Grant's affairs was contacted by me about the medical records, and another consultant, Dr. Patrick Lincoln, was contacted by the OPCS, as it then was. Sadly, Dr. Lincoln said that he could not provide a statutory declaration, as he did not have Dr. Grant's original records to look at.
Mr. Veale has found himself blocked at every turn in his perfectly proper efforts to correct this erroneous registration, despite having a sworn affidavit from his former wife dated November 1991. I shall quote from that affidavit:
I had an affair with a gentleman … the result of which was my becoming pregnant and giving birth to my son Tarran James Veale whose date of birth is the 27th April 1987. Affiliation proceedings were subsequently pursued and an order was made in respect of Tarran for maintenance.
That sworn affidavit to the court, dated 7 November 1991, is apparently not sufficient to correct the erroneous birth certificate.
The evidence has been accepted as fact by the courts for all the other important decisions in the divorce and the ancillary relief proceedings to be based upon it, but apparently, under the law as it stands, it is not sufficient for the Office for National Statistics.
On 28 April last year, my constituent and I tried another tack to secure a statutory declaration that the Office for National Statistics might regard as acceptable. We tried to get statutory declarations from the magistrate or the solicitor in front of whom the affiliation proceedings had taken place. That, too, was regarded as insufficient.
The Office for National Statistics subsequently made an offer, suggesting in a letter dated 22 May last year that it might be able to correct the birth registration if someone else could be found who was prepared to accept the findings of Dr. Grant and make a statutory declaration on that basis.
However, that offer is of no help to my constituent unless the office itself can find somebody who, without Dr. Grant's original records, is still prepared to make such a statutory declaration. My constituent has tried, but he has no means of finding such a person, and when the Office for National Statistics suggested Dr. Lincoln, he was unwilling to make such a declaration without the original records. The offer is therefore fruitless.
During the long saga of this case, it never occurred to me, or, I am sure, to my constituent, that it would end as a debate answered by a Treasury Minister. Such are the oddities thrown up when arms of Government responsibility are transferred from one Department to another. However, knowing of the sympathetic nature of my hon. Friend the Minister, I hope that she will be able to assist.
Now that the matter is within the purview of the Treasury, my fears about lack of parliamentary time are substantial. I do not suppose my hon. Friend can see any scope for making the required changes to statute law, if that is the only way forward, in a Finance Bill. However, I hope that she may be able to bring pressure to bear on officials, to break the vicious circle in which my constituent finds himself.
Perhaps she can ensure that the Office for National Statistics does more than express sympathy, as it has repeatedly done, and either finds a doctor who is prepared to consider the considerable legal evidence—based on medical evidence that everybody acknowledges once existed in the case—and who will swear the second statutory declaration that is said to be the only way out, or finds another way out for my constituent. Or perhaps she can find parliamentary time to change the law.
Clearly in this case, as Mr. Bumble said in "Oliver Twist",
the law is a ass—a idiot.
If that is the best that the law can do, my hope for the law, like that of Mr. Bumble, is that its eyes may be opened by experience.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on obtaining a debate on this serious case. Just as he was surprised to

find that it was a Treasury Minister to whom his debate was addressed, I too, as that Treasury Minister, am surprised that the matter falls within my remit. As for the law, I could not possibly make any comment; as a barrister, no doubt my hon. Friend knows the law better than I do.
I am aware of the background to the case, and I have considerable sympathy with the difficult situation in which my hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Veale, finds himself. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the assiduous way in which he has pursued the case.
The Registrar-General is responsible for administering the law relating to the registration of births, deaths and marriages in England and Wales, and I have consulted him about this matter. The Registrar-General's office forms part of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which is now the Office for National Statistics. I am aware that there are particular complications with this most sensitive and unusual case.
The background legislation governing the handling of Mr. Veale's application is the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which requires the birth of every child born in England and Wales to be registered by the registrar of births and deaths for the registration sub-district in which the child was born. The information required to be registered in respect of each child is prescribed by regulations made by the Registrar-General. The information is given to the registrar by a qualified informant, who is usually a parent of the child.
If the parents are married, the child's birth may be registered on the sole information of the mother or the father. There is a presumption in common law that a child born to a married woman is a child of the mother and the husband. In those circumstances, the husband would be recorded in the birth register as the father of the child, unless, at the time of registration, it was made clear to the registrar that the husband could not possibly be the father.
A great deal of reliance is therefore placed on the information given to the registrar being accurate and for that reason, every registrar permanently displays a notice referring to the penalties of the Perjury Act 1911 for giving false information. That, of course, does not always deter. Indeed, it would be true to say that, while a birth certificate is certainly evidence of the fact of birth, the same cannot always be said of the person named as the father. That is the nub and heart of this case.
The difficulty arises when one tries to make a correction to an entry contained in a birth register. Such a correction can be made in accordance with the law only if it can be shown that an error was made when the birth was registered. The appropriate section of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 allows an error of fact or substance, which is what we have in this case, to be corrected. That may be done once satisfactory evidence of the facts has been obtained, and on production of a statutory declaration setting out the nature of the error and the true facts of the case made by two qualified informants of the birth.
The people who are qualified to act as informants are defined in legislation, and the mother and father of a child are the primary informants. The Registrar-General therefore looks first for statutory declarations from the people named as the child's parents when a correction is requested. The legislation goes on to state that, in default of a qualified informant, a credible person with


knowledge of the true facts may make the statutory declaration. That person must have personal knowledge of the facts.
My hon. Friend has outlined the circumstances of the birth and the divorce in this case. The birth was registered on information given by the mother as that of the child of herself and her then husband. Application for the father's details to be removed was made by Mr. Veale in February 1993.
Officials of what was then the OPCS were satisfied from the evidence provided that the entry could be corrected by means of statutory declarations by Mr. Veale and the child's mother. Evidence of an error in the entry included a copy of a blood test result to which my hon. Friend referred. It was carried out in 1988 and excluded Mr. Veale from paternity of the child. A copy of an affiliation order made in 1988 naming someone other than Mr. Veale as the father was also submitted, together with an affidavit made by the mother in 1991. However, the child's mother refused to co-operate in making the statutory declaration required by law for the purpose of correcting the birth entry.
In those circumstances, OPCS officials advised that the blood tester would be qualified as an alternative declarant in the capacity of a credible person with knowledge of the facts.
The mother was notified, but it transpired that the blood tester had died, and other doctors who were contacted felt that they were not able to make a declaration based on the tester's original records, as my hon. Friend said. Officials also wrote to the person who had been named as the father, inquiring whether he would be willing to make a statutory declaration. Unfortunately, he declined to be involved in the matter.
I hope that the House will agree that the ONS tried to find someone who could provide the relevant evidence. The declaration from the mother was not made, so one was left with the difficulties that have been described.

To date, Mr. Veale has been unable to find another person who is qualified by law to make the appropriate statutory declaration.
The provisions that govern the correction of errors in civil registration records are tightly drawn by law to prevent abuse. Neither the Registrar-General nor I have the power to exercise any discretion in this matter. The court records and blood tests provide good evidence of the facts, but the legislation still requires the statutory declaration to be made before a birth entry can be corrected.
As a consequence of this type of case, although not this one in particular, the provisions were reviewed in 1988 in a Green Paper. A White Paper was subsequently published, and the result has been a series of proposals that have not yet been brought into law because parliamentary time has not yet allowed it.
The proposals in that White Paper governing this sort of case would broaden the range of persons who could be qualified to make a statutory declaration. Such broadening could be a suitable candidate for the deregulation route. I hold out no promises to my hon. Friend, but I can assure him that we are examining that area, and I will keep in touch with him as far as progress and potential possibilities are concerned.
I can appreciate my hon. Friend's frustration, and particularly Mr. Veale's frustration, but without the co-operation of his former wife or a suitably qualified second person to declare that the blood tests taken were accurate, regrettably there is nothing further that I can offer him, other than considering the matter via the deregulation route to find out whether some of the White Paper's proposals can be brought into force.
I thank my hon. Friend again for bringing this matter forward for consideration, and I am sorry to have had to give him this answer, which is undoubtedly not as positive as he would have liked.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve midnight.